Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Drug Abuse

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this very important subject today and to be part of establishing a new tradition, only recently started, of Wednesday morning debates.
I want to discuss the size of the problem of drug abuse among young people. It is notoriously difficult to get accurate statistics, but Home Office figures suggest that, of young people living in inner-city areas, some 42 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds, and 44 per cent. of 20 to 24-year-olds, have taken drugs at some time. We had a recent reminder of that in my constituency, with a haul of £25 million of drugs on board a catamaran that was towed into our new Sovereign harbour, and another reminder when there were some expulsions from a prominent local public school.
The figures vary quite dramatically. Home Office figures show that the total number of drug offenders has risen by 190 per cent. since 1983, in a 10-year period. Of course, the Home Office also makes the point that there is likely to be a significant understatement of the figures of drug addiction and drug use. In a survey in 1993, it was said that only 52 per cent. of boys and 57 per cent. of girls had not been offered any of the named drugs in year 11, aged 15 to 16. Those are, on any view, dramatic figures.
Nor, indeed, are the problems limited to urban areas. The East Sussex Drugs Advisory Council—ESDAC—produced the statistic that the incidence of drug taking in the north Wealden district of east Sussex was almost the same as that of Brighton, and that more than one fifth of 14 and 15-year-olds had tried an illicit drug, and, of those, 5 per cent. were likely to develop problems because of drug abuse.
I am particularly grateful to Mrs. Penny McKay, of the Eastbourne community drugs team, for producing other figures, such as those from the South Thames (East) regional drug misuse database, which suggest, for example, that the average age of first use of cannabis is under 15 years old. There is evidence that young people most often experiment with substance misuse between the ages of 10 and 14. For example, solvent abuse is the highest cause of unnatural death between the age of 10 and 16, after road accidents. We must ask ourselves why. What is the attraction?
The British Medical Journal, in its own investigations, felt that the most common reasons cited were
to feel big, show off, look grown up … because friends do, trendy.

I should like this morning to concentrate only on cannabis, the most widely used of the so-called "soft" drugs. As the Government consultation document, "Tackling Drugs Together", said, the burden is on those who wish to legalise or decriminalise soft or hard drugs. One of the arguments that is made for legalisation or decriminalisation is that those drugs are no worse than alcohol or tobacco. That is rather a bleak argument. I am particularly impressed by something that was said by Detective Chief Superintendent Des Donohue, head of Dorset CID, who, a few years ago, received a Churchill fellowship to study the police response to drug abuse. When the point was put to him, he said:
If I had been a bobby in the 16th century I would have nicked Sir Walter Raleigh for the illegal importation of drugs.
We are stuck with the social problems of drink and tobacco but that's no reason to legalise cannabis.
Another argument often used is that legalisation would reduce the criminality that tends to surround the use and supply of drugs. Of course, if one legalised burglary, the crime statistics would doubtless improve. But that is not the way to tackle that particular problem.
There are also some practical difficulties. First, how could a workable system be established that distinguished between possession of drugs for personal consumption and possession for trafficking purposes? Secondly, I assume that even those who advocate legalisation would want a system to protect children and young persons. Thirdly, how would we deal with the question of driving under the influence? There is much evidence to suggest that driving under the influence of cannabis, which can take a week or so to leave the human system, is rather more dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Would not the legalisation of so-called soft drugs such as cannabis act as a gateway to harder drugs such as heroin, and would not that be extremely damaging? The best idea, surely, is to introduce drug education into as many schools as possible to show our youngsters at an early age how damaging the use of cannabis can be.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. I shall develop the "gateway" or "pathway" argument shortly.
Legalisation would also involve Britain's withdrawal from the United Nations convention on narcotic drugs, thus risking our international isolation. It has been argued that legalisation would reduce the allure and attraction of drugs, but I consider that argument flawed. I also think that comparisons with tobacco and alcohol are meaningless, as those substances are not legally restricted in any real sense except in respect of minors.
Why should drug barons and others who currently make a good living from organised crime not seek to control an ever-expanding market, albeit a legalised or decriminalised one? As for the "libertarian" argument—the John Stuart Mill approach—I fear that we are dealing with the real world, not that of philosophers.
It is interesting to note that even the Dutch Minister of Justice recently announced to the United Nations that his country was reviewing its so-called "coffee shop" policy, whereby cannabis dealing and use are tolerated at certain outlets, because of a perceived sharp increase in the availability of drugs.
Let me deal next with the arguments against the legalisation of cannabis. The argument about its effect on human beings has raged for many years, but there is no conclusive proof that so-called soft drugs are non-addictive or completely harmless. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists put it,
There can be no reasonable dispute that cannabis can cause acute mental impairment in terms either of intoxication or a transient but very bizarre and worrying psychological experience.
There is a growing body of medical opinion on other physical effects. A recent article in The Big Issue—not a publication renowned for its slavish support for pro-establishment views—set out some of the evidence that is emerging, particularly in America, of damage caused by cannabis or marijuana. Apparently, research shows that it can damage the human immune and reproductive systems and the brain. There is also strong evidence that the drug is more carcinogenic than tobacco. According to Professor Sridhar of the university of Miami's cancer research centre,
Cannabis smokers develop cancer 15 to 20 years younger than you would expect. I am convinced it is a highly dangerous drug.

Mr. Oliver Heald: At a time when most commentators agree that there is a need for even more health education and even more effort by those leading social policy to persuade people to give up substances such as alcohol and tobacco, would it not be wrong for hon. Members or anyone else to 'be seen to endorse a product that involves many of the same difficulties? It would run contrary to all the current social thinking.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that we allow the legal consumption of alcohol and tobacco does not mean that, if we started with a clean sheet in respect of both commodities, we would find ourselves in our present position.
Cannabis is very much an unknown quantity. It took some 50 years and literally thousands of research projects, papers and investigations to discover that smoking tobacco causes cancer. I believe that there are about 100,000 tobacco-related deaths a year in this country alone. It is hardly surprising, however, that cannabis is harmful: it contains more than 400 compounds that convert to over 2,000 chemicals when it is ignited.
The element THC, which is the main ingredient of cannabis, is important in terms of its strength in a given dose and the way in which it builds up in the body over long periods. Some scientists estimate that the present levels of THC in cannabis are some 16 times higher than at the time of the Woodstock festival, which some of the older hon. Members present may remember. There are also suggestions that cannabis can reduce fertility, as well as weakening the immune system and the body's protection from infection. Studies show that cannabis smokers are up to six times more likely to develop serious mental illnesses.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: In my constituency, as in my hon. Friend's, the problem of drug abuse among young people is particularly serious. The effect of cannabis consumption on health has been particularly marked in Blackpool, and Dr. Mohammed

Musa, who works in my local drug advisory clinic, strongly believes that it adversely affects the general health of all drug users in the town.

Mr. Waterson: I am not surprised. I do not know whether Dr. Musa has a view on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—the extent to which the use of so-called soft drugs leads to the use of so-called hard drugs.
Picking one's way through the mass of literature on the subject, it is difficult to arrive at a clear, definitive medical answer. It would be dishonest not to accept that opinions vary, but I stress what I said at the beginning of my speech: the burden of proof must be firmly on those who wish to legalise or decriminalise those substances.

Mr. Hartley Booth: Even the Government now state that, as well as affecting psychotic illnesses and lung diseases, cannabis affects the user's judgment, leading to pregnancy and numerous other spin-off problems.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most dramatic illustrations of that point is contained in research into road and train accidents, particularly that conducted in the United States.
According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists,
It is clear that a person who uses cannabis is statistically more likely to try other illicit drugs than one who does not.

Mr. Tony Banks: The argument that the hon. Gentleman is about to deploy is a familiar one, but what he has just said is unexceptional. Obviously, someone who starts using cannabis is statistically more likely to move on to another substance; but it is equally true that someone who drinks a dry sherry is statistically more likely to end up as a total alcoholic. What point is the hon. Gentleman trying to make?

Mr. Waterson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was at Woodstock. I was about to deal with his point, which some experts call the "pathway" argument. I am not saying that everyone who tries cannabis will move on to something harder, and I do not entirely disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. A number of studies show that, as people become adjusted to a drug such as cannabis, there is a tendency to increase the dose, or to move on to something that is somewhat stronger.

Mr. Richard Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now variants of cannabis that can cause hallucination, so the idea that cannabis is some sort of safe drug with a recreational flavour is inaccurate? Skunk, a variant of cannabis, is imported from the Netherlands. Such variants can cause hallucinations that can drive people on to experiment with harsher drugs.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I know that he has made himself very much an expert in those matters, and that he has spent a great deal of time and effort in his constituency trying to combat drug abuse problems, especially among young people.
Another argument is that, if cannabis is legal, in a sense, it loses the attraction of being out of bounds, especially to young people, and they may choose to move on to something that appears to have a more superficial romance about it because it is illegal. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) talked about


pathways. It is true that many addicts, perhaps even most addicts of, for example, heroin have previously used cannabis. Some of the studies that I have read show that it is equally true that alcohol is a pathway. Children who start drinking alcohol at a young age—and it is surprising how many do nowadays—will graduate to the other drugs that I am talking about. That is an important point.
The next argument against legalisation is that it reduces social disapproval of the use of those drugs. People may argue that drugs should be legal, but I doubt whether many people argue that they are positively beneficial. By legalising them, one would send a confusing message to our young people, a point made by Sir Paul Condon recently, when he said:
By continuing to debate the possibility of legalisation we are diminishing the dangers of drugs in the eyes of the young. We must take the utmost care not to make drugs appear attractive.
Merely by debating the possibility of removing legal constraints, we may unwittingly be encouraging their use.
Another argument often put forward is that legalisation would reduce the street price. Again, the evidence is clear that, if the availability and ease of access to drugs is increased, one will increase use and abuse, especially among young people. As Professor Griffith Edwards of the National Addiction Centre said,
access to drugs has been proved significantly to encourage use of drugs.
There is abundant research evidence from America, both in the medical profession and among American ground troops in Vietnam. In both situations, for different reasons, drugs were freely available and there was a much higher level of addiction than among the rest of the population.
On health costs, I have said that there is no conclusive proof that cannabis is non-addictive. There is ample proof that it damages health. If one considers the problems that we have in society with alcohol and tobacco, which are already legal, one may realise the sort of difficulties that a massive expansion, potentially, of drug use would cause, plus other costs to society.
What I call the social effects are often ignored. The regular use of drugs often involves a surrender to unreality, a retreat into a world that has neither pain nor achievement. That has a long-term effect on any society.
The evidence, therefore, is clear. I feel that no responsible group or political party would advocate legalisation or decriminalisation, except possibly one. As you will know, Madam Speaker, the Liberal Democrats voted to decriminalise cannabis at their last party conference. I see hon. Members shaking their heads. I am willing to give way on that point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that I might catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, to explain that the Liberal Democrats did not vote for that. I spoke in the debate and I shall ensure that the House understands exactly what we did vote for. We voted for a royal commission to consider a range of issues, including whether there should be a change in the legal position. That is clear and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will no longer misrepresent what we decided.

Mr. Waterson: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. This is an important and disturbing issue, which surfaced in my constituency. I have taken great trouble to ascertain the true facts about the wording of the

motions, and the two separate votes that took place. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is free to say whatever he wishes in the Chamber, but some of the points made by his friends in my constituency border on the libellous. They are certainly attempts to rewrite history. For the record, let me assist the House.
There was a separate vote to refer these matters to a royal commission. It is probably not unusual for a Liberal Democrat party conference to pass motions that are contradictory because, after all, it does the same thing every day of the week in this place. However, it had a vote and then a separate vote, where conference called for
The decriminalisation of the use and possession of cannabis in order that the police and Customs and Excise are able to target their resources on the vital battle against the use of hard drugs.
The vote on that was 426 in favour and 375 against.

Mr. Hughes: Only because the hon. Gentleman is being so misleading, I should point out that he read part of a sentence—I have the motion as passed here. I hope that he will listen and not misrepresent the position again. The wording of the sentence is:
Conference calls for the establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate and consider strategies for combating drug misuse, including
and there is a list of six things, of which the last is the question of decriminalisation. The royal commission, therefore, would consider six issues, one of which is what the legal position should be. For heaven's sake, the hon. Gentleman must not lie in the House.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I withdraw. The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent our position in the House.

Madam Speaker: I am obliged, of course.

Mr. Waterson: I did not intend to spend a long time on this and I am running rather late, but it is time to nail that gross misrepresentation by the Liberal Democrats. I do not blame them for being embarrassed by the vote. Their leader was extremely embarrassed. I seem to remember that he stormed off the platform. They should be embarrassed. This is a disgrace.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is so much in love with the facts, and I am looking at the Liberal Democrat agenda paper for Monday 19 September last year—

Mr. Hughes: We were there.

Mr. Waterson: I sometimes wonder. I have already accepted that that conference passed a separate motion by a separate vote to refer the matter to a royal commission, but, at the same time, it passed by another vote a separate motion. I have already read out proposal 6 in Amendment 1, put forward by the Saffron Walden constituency and moved by Alan Dean.
Lest the hon. Gentleman would try to persuade the House either that black is white and white is black, or merely that this is a brief aberration on his party's part, let me remind him of his own words in his role as community affairs spokesman. He said:
Lots of absolutely perfectly respectable, normal members of society take drugs as normally as many of their fellow citizens smoke, drink beer or have sex.


If the hon. Gentleman wants to withdraw those words, I am happy to give way.
Nor was that vote just an aberration. At the Scottish Liberal Democrat annual conference in 1993, delegates also voted to decriminalise the possession of cannabis. I draw a line under that part of my speech.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning not only the Liberal Democrats' vote at their party conference to legalise cannabis, but the vote to make contraception available to 11-year-old girls without reference to their parents? Did he share my horror on reading in The Times this morning that this year they are going to debate euthanasia? What is happening to the Liberal Democrat party?

Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will not pursue that line of argument. It is not part of the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Waterson: I had no intention of doing so, but I shall make two points. First, I would not wish to remind the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of more than one issue on which his party is attempting to distance itself from the actualité. Secondly, has my hon. Friend read the comments of Mr. Alan Hope—Councillor Alan Hope, I beg his pardon—of the Monster Raving Loony party who, after the Liberal Democrat conference, said:
They are becoming loonier than we are. We are being out-loonied by the Liberal Democrats …We can't believe some of the loony policies they are advocating—legalising cannabis, condoms for 11 year olds and abolishing the monarchy. You can't get loonier than that"?

Mr. Hughes: He got his information from The Sun, like the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Waterson: I was quoting from the Western Daily Press. Let us move on now that I have put the record straight. The next time a Liberal Democrat councillor or spokesman in my constituency accuses me of lying or falsehood, as has happened here today, I shall take action. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to repeat what he said outside the House, we shall get to the heart of the matter. I am conscious of the fact that time is moving on. I have accepted many interventions and been provoked beyond what is reasonable.
What are we doing to deal with the problem? As a country, we spent more than £500 million on the problem in 1993. I have already mentioned the excellent work of the community drugs team in my constituency. The Seaside centre in my constituency has also done excellent work under the leadership of Pat Armstrong. ESDAC draws together all the threads of information and policy to combat drug abuse in east Sussex. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), who has been stalwart in his fight to increase awareness of those problems in east Sussex and in his support for organisations such as ESDAC.
The Sussex police have been active in many ways, especially in providing schools with liaison officers. I had a letter from Peter Westcott, the deputy chief constable, which sets out in detail the measures in which the police have been involved. It is estimated that in the country as a whole some 1,300 police officers are involved solely with drugs work.
Of course, health education is very important and some excellent leaflets have been produced by the Department of Health, East Sussex county council and many other bodies. Hon. Members may have seen the draft circular on this subject from the Department for Education, which makes excellent reading. Drugs education is now firmly a part of the national curriculum.
I believe that the formation last year of the central drugs co-ordination unit, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, has done much to focus attention on the problem. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have much to say about the impact of the consultation document, "Tackling Drugs Together". It contains many useful ideas and focuses commendably on the importance of educating young people about the dangers of taking drugs. It is interesting that that very detailed document firmly rejects arguments for the legalisation of drugs. In fact, in a sentence that sums up the theme of my speech, it states:
So, in general terms, the strongest arguments against legalisation of controlled drugs are the risks of wider use and addiction; these are very serious risks which no responsible Government should take on behalf of its citizens.
I agree. The Government must promote responsible policies that educate our young people about drug abuse.
In conclusion, the last thing that we want is the crackpot policy peddled by the Liberals, which would merely encourage drug abuse by our nation's young.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for being called to speak and I welcome the debate on this matter, not least because it is the first since the Government published their Green Paper entitled "Tackling Drugs Together" to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred. My colleagues and I were under the impression until today that only politicians of our hue debated this issue, so the hon. Gentleman has done his party a service by putting it on the agenda.
It is perfectly obvious that the topic is hugely important. It is generally accepted by police forces across the country that two thirds of thefts are drug related. In a recent sample taken in the north-west, 95 per cent. of young people convicted of criminal offences admitted to using drugs.
I shall deal with, but not linger on, the point that clearly obsesses the hon. Member for Eastbourne—what is and should be the legal position of drugs. For a long time, there has been a debate about whether there should be decriminalisation or legalisation of any currently illegal or criminal drugs. Many people such as members of the judiciary, police officers and academics agree with those Members of Parliament who support the proposition that the law should be reformed. The tragedy has been that, until now, the debate has taken place not among elected representatives of the people but in the media, which have often misrepresented it—although that is not true of the serious press, which has dealt responsibly with the issue.
Legalisation or decriminalisation is certainly on the agenda in the country at large. According to some opinion poll soundings, more than 30 per cent. of the people support the argument for decriminalisation. If one walks around the streets of an urban constituency such as mine and talks to young people, one of the first issues that they raise is this very question because, as the hon. Member


for Eastbourne said, many young people not only talk about drugs but often turn to them as their first choice recreational activity. That may apply more often to 15-year-olds, but also much younger children are involved, including those in primary schools.
Let me make it absolutely clear once and for all, although I am prepared to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman in the House, in Eastbourne or anywhere else, that my party and, as it happens, I personally, have not been persuaded to support legalisation or decriminalisation. We believe, however, that there should be an informed and objective debate.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I am trying to be brief and I wish to make this point categorically.
There are, of course, strong arguments against decriminalisation and legalisation, some of which the hon. Member for Eastbourne outlined. It is reasonable to argue that, if one alters where the line is drawn between what is forbidden and what is legal, the subsequently forbidden fruit is the fruit which is potentially more dangerous. Decriminalisation or legalisation may make it more likely that drug addicts or drug users will move here, as they have previously moved to Holland, a country which, I accept, is rethinking its position. Legalisation might not necessarily cut crime because crime would simply be connected with more serious drugs.
I disagree fundamentally, however, with the idea that having a debate determines whether more young people use drugs on the street. That is nonsense. Huge numbers of youngsters use drugs and they think that we are completely out of touch because we do not discuss the issue, and they do not understand why not. I am also not persuaded that the price goes up rather than down if drugs are legalised or decriminalised.
The Green Paper stated every reason against legalisation because its brief was to do so. That is not good enough. The matter must be looked at independently. Lord Nolan and his committee are respected because they take an independent view of matters of major public concern and everyone is looking forward to hearing what they conclude, because it is authoritative and not party political. If standards in public life can be the subject of objective analysis, recommendation and conclusion, exactly the same can be done with another central issue in today's modern society: how to deal with the amount of drugs in our society and on the streets. The Green Paper says:
it is clear that the debate can be conducted in good faith by responsible people who can respect each other's views.
Amen to that. It means that the hon. Member for Eastbourne and his colleagues must not misrepresent what is decided in a democratic party, where, unlike them, we have the right to vote and debate amendments to motions.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way.
The motion that was finally agreed by last year's Liberal Democrat conference says:

Conference calls for:
The establishment of a Royal Commission to investigate and consider strategies for combating drug misuse, including:—

1. Greater resources to be given to HM Customs & Excise …
2. The police to be given more resources …
3. All schools to be obliged to offer advice and guidance to all pupils …
4. Immediate action to set up rehabilitation centres throughout the country;
5. Much stiffer penalties for all convicted drug dealers;
6. The decriminalisation of the use and possession of cannabis in order that … Customs & Excise are able to target their resources".

That is the list that we want on the agenda of a royal commission, and the items are of equal importance.

Mr. Streeter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way because I am trying to be speedy.
The motion was clear, but, of course, must be read as a whole. The Liberal Democrat party and the responsible members of the press who were at the conference understand that. Other politicians have understood that, too. Yesterday, the 'Prime Minister confirmed that he is not yet persuaded, but thinks that there should be a general debate on the single European currency. Equally, there should be an independent and well-informed debate on drugs. That is where we stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, has also made it clear that the Liberal Democrats' Scottish conference voted, on an advisory basis, in favour of decriminalising cannabis.

Mr. Heald: That is all right, then.

Mr. Hughes: No. The Scottish conference does not make policy for the federal party, because the legality of drugs is a United Kingdom matter. Federally, the party made its decision at last year's federal conference.
In 1984, the Government set up an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which recognises the need for effective, broad-based education programmes. The Department of Education and Science, as it then was, provided £4 million to fund the appointment of drug education co-ordinators for each local education authority in England and Wales. They did very well and worked with schools and the youth service, but that initiative has fallen by the wayside and funding for those preventive health education workers ended in 1993 and was switched to schools.
Co-ordination through local authorities is far more effective than trying to get the work done with small amounts of money in individual schools. The Secretary of State acknowledged the key role of health education co-ordinators, but only £32 million was provided between 1986 and 1993 for that project. Moreover, it is not to be repeated. An average LEA with about 300 schools now receives about £30,000, which means that each school is expected to provide training for a total of about £100. With only that sum, teachers cannot be properly trained and equipped to deal with such a huge issue.
The Green Paper and the Department for Education's draft circular "Drug Prevention and Schools" have some encouraging aspects. The emphasis has changed from an uncompromising search for total abstinence, which was the original Home Office position in 1989, to acceptance


that substance abuse has become a part of modern-day society and that education should concentrate more on constraining its expansion and lessening suffering.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad to see that the Minister agrees. Schools have been encouraged to develop a repertoire of responses to drug-related incidents. The Office for Standards in Education has been instructed to inspect the quality and effectiveness of schools' drugs policies as part of its school inspections. Alcohol and tobacco are also now in the DFE's draft circular, although they were not mentioned in the Green Paper. If we are to discuss drugs abuse among young people, the misery caused by the long-term health problems of alcoholism and tobacco addiction should be included.
It is important to discuss how we should persuade young people to make the right decisions. Given that the figure for illegal drug use among 14 and 15-year-olds is thought to be between the 14 per cent. that is given in the Government's document, albeit without statistical back-up, and the much higher and more realistic figure of 36 per cent., we must ask why young people decide to take drugs. A prevailing view seems to be that it is because they are under pressure, yet professionals on the subject say that it is because young people want to try drugs, as they want to try all sorts of other things. The Green Paper does not seek to tackle the root of the problem. Yesterday, we debated poverty and unemployment. Many issues contribute to young people's use of drugs, but poverty, lack of social activities, the rundown of the youth service, lack of work and broken homes are among those issues. We must tackle the causes that lead young people to make those decisions, and I hope that we shall do so.
The debate on this subject has only just begun in the country. I am glad that the Government are beginning to enter the mainstream of the debate, but we should have an objective assessment of the position for the future. My colleagues and I have argued for that and the Nolan committee shows that it is worth while. I hope that the Government will not now have a knee-jerk reaction, suggesting that only they and their advisers can get the matter right. Let us have a royal commission—even a standing royal commission—but, for the present, let us give education authorities the resources to co-ordinate dealing with the drugs problem in schools throughout their areas and the youth service the resources to work on the ground. We must be tough with dealers. We must recognise that young people know more about what is going on than older people, so we must take their advice and listen to them. We shall then understand how to deal effectively with drugs, which often harm their lives.
I hope that this is the beginning of an important debate that will be objectively carried on outside this place from now on.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the debate and in thanking my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), for initiating it.
I find myself in complete agreement with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I do not agree with his attitude to legalisation, to which I shall return in a moment, nor with his statement that the issue has not been debated. It has been much debated both within and between our parties. Most significantly, it was debated by the Council of Europe three years ago when it had 23 member states, and every representative of every party of every member state unanimously supported a motion against legalising drugs. To say that the debate has not begun is misrepresenting the pace. Today's debate is a useful continuum.
The fact of the matter, as is accentuated in the Green Paper, is that cannabis as well as other more serious drugs is harmful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne pointed out, it is harmful to the heart, the nervous system and the reproductive organs, particularly those of young girls. It is also harmful because of its influence on a number of psychoses. It is a tragedy that those who argue for the legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis play down those harmful effects, so that young people who are tempted to try cannabis and other drugs are reassured by those people's belief that it is harmless. That idea must be scotched and I hope that the debate will contribute to that.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that the young know a lot about drugs, but does my hon. Friend agree that the medical evidence that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) have quoted demonstrates that young people do not have access to that evidence?

Mr. Rathbone: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend and I thank him for reiterating that point. Every doctor with knowledge about the problems of drug misuse has accentuated and reaccentuated the possible dangers of a drugs habit. We must do the same in the House and outside.
Legalisation would be harmful. Those who support it have conceded victory to drugs users—the weak-willed members of society and those people who feed that habit. That defeatist attitude sends exactly the wrong, negative message to our youth and that of the world.
The black market exists because demand exists. It will continue to exist whether cannabis is legalised or not as long as that demand exists and until more is done to reduce it. Legalisation of cannabis, should it ever happen, would inevitably lead to more frequent misuse of drugs and the mental and physical suffering that goes with that—just as we have found with alcohol. Alcoholism is still a far greater problem in this country and around the world than drug misuse because alcohol is readily and legally available. If we cannot learn from the problems of alcoholism and apply them to drugs, we are denying history to the detriment of the current generation and future ones.
I welcome the Green Paper, which accentuates the importance of demand reduction and the need for ever-greater emphasis on health education and prevention. We await keenly the Government's reaction to the consultation period, which has recently finished. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will offer us a keyhole insight into the Government's likely reactions.
I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary drugs misuse group. We put together a precise submission to the Government and I should like to stress two elements of it. The first is the hoary old question of funding, which must be considered. It is crucial that the necessary funds are made available to pursue the policies outlined in the consultation document. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that funding should be available to teachers to educate young people about drugs. It should also be available for better treatment of drug addiction within the national health service. The list goes on. Allocating the necessary funds for the Government's eventual plans to be published in their eventual White Paper will require some hard bullet biting.
My second point relates not to funding but to strategy. The Government have set their way by publishing the consultation document. They have drawn together the various Government Departments in England and they must now continue that co-ordination by including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I praise the co-ordination unit and all those who work in it, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but that co-ordination is required in strategic terms across the country. In this united kingdom we still fall down because we do not have a United Kingdom strategy to further the Government's efforts in every part of it and their contribution towards the fight against the problems of drugs misuse worldwide.

Mr. Tony Banks: I, too, welcome the debate that has been initiated by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I endorse what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the need for a continuing debate on a subject of great social significance in this country and around the world. We should debate politically sensitive matters in the House without predictable knee-jerk reactions.
I have considered this matter for some considerable time and I have personally come to the opinion—I stress "personally"—that we should legalise so-called soft drugs such as cannabis. I proposed that a royal commission should consider all the possible options for tackling the drugs problem long before the Liberal party did so. The evidence of medical people and those involved in enforcement should be further scrutinised to see whether we have got it right in Britain and whether people have got it right anywhere else.
I hasten to add that my call for the legalisation of cannabis is dictated by my own views and is not in any way connected with the policy of my party, which remains as determined to resist legalisation as the Conservative party. Our Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will make that quite clear today. I should also say that I am speaking for no more than a minority of Members who agree with me. Many hon. Members are prepared, however, to consider that possibility more openly.
It is worth dealing with the point about establishing a pathway, because I am quite certain that some hon. Members have used cannabis in the past. A number of hon. Members have told me privately that they have done so, but that they are not prepared publicly to endorse the use of soft drugs or any other drugs because of the political implications of doing so. They have not turned

into potheads or ended up mainlining heroin any more than anyone in this House who has had a dry sherry in the past has turned up as a hopeless alcoholic in the Strangers Bar or anywhere else. Certain people will, of course, naturally move on from drinking sherry to alcoholism or from using cannabis to using heroin. That will happen naturally to some people, but the vast majority do not make that progression and that must be recognised.

Mr. Booth: The crucial argument is that medical evidence suggests that at least 4 per cent. of the population—it could be more than double that—are prone to become addicts. We do not know who they are, but we must protect them.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman could be correct, but he is being imprecise when he says that it could be 4 per cent. of the population or double that. I should like to deal with precise facts rather than anecdotal evidence. That is the important point. I agree that there are obsessive people in our society, as there are anywhere else, who will progress from one particular habit to another. Someone who starts by a turning a car over and stealing a radio might eventually become a serial killer—there would be a connection—but, for the vast majority of people, that causal link simply does not exist. I am simply asking the House to be prepared to consider coolly and rationally a subject as significant as the one that we are discussing, and not to rely on anecdotal evidence and knee-jerk reactions.
Human beings have used drugs and alcohol since time immemorial. Many of the so-called "illegal substances" that we call drugs, which we now ban, used to be freely available to people and were prescribed by doctors, even to members of the royal family. The Balmoral records, which were made available a year or so ago, show that laudanum and opium were prescribed for Queen Victoria's pre-menstrual tension. We have changed our attitude towards the use of drugs but, throughout history, human beings have used alcohol and have used drugs. It is simply that there are prevailing moods in societies that cause us to say at some moment that we do not like what is being done, which is why America moved to prohibition in the 1920s. We know about the chaos that that caused.
I feel it necessary to put on the record, as I have to do regularly when I become involved in this fairly politically sensitive area, that I have never used cannabis or any other illegal substance. I do not say that from any moral point of view, as the permissive 1960s appear to have passed me by altogether when I was at university—a matter of profound regret in my old age. I have tried to make up for those things that I missed in the 1960s, but. I hasten to add that one of the things that I have not tried to make up is the use of drugs.
The fact that I won a competition recently on a television programme to roll the longest joint, in which I beat a number of prominent pop stars who readily confessed to using the stuff, was merely a sign of my proficiency with nicotine in my earlier years when I "rolled my own". I still have that skill, although I no longer smoke nicotine.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned 100,000 or so smoking-related deaths. From a health point of view, it is far more damaging for people to smoke cigarettes or to drink alcohol than to use cannabis. Many of the


health-related side-effects of using cannabis occur because cannabis is mixed with nicotine. That is the important thing. If someone were to take cannabis in a "space cookie" or a cup of tea, some of those medical side-effects would not be present.

Mr. Waterson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I argued that it took a long time, a great deal of use of cigarettes and nicotine and a great many studies to discover that nicotine was harmful—indeed, deadly—and we are much less far down the road in terms of cannabis. If use of cannabis were widespread, one might discover, some years on, exactly the same or worse effects.

Mr. Banks: Tobacco companies continue to resist the link between nicotine and lung cancer for straight economic reasons. I am happy for those matters to be considered, which is why I spoke about a royal commission. There is conflicting medical evidence, but if one is able to lay it out, as it were, and we are able to approach it objectively as legislators, and if, in the end, it is our considered opinion that the medical side-effects of using cannabis overwhelm any freedom arguments, of course it would be right for us to reaffirm our political position with regard to the enforcement of cannabis as an illegal substance. I am simply asking the House, as it is perfectly proper to do—unusual, perhaps—to examine the facts before adducing the arguments.
The title of the debate on the Order Paper is "The abuse of drugs by young people". It is right to link those two together. There are obvious links between the circumstances in which many young people find themselves and their use of illegal substances. The Cambridge study that was published today, which received considerable coverage on the radio and in the newspapers, shows that the link between unemployment and crime cannot be denied, however much Ministers might like to do so. They are responsible in great measure for high unemployment, so, for God's sake, they do not want to be linked with the fact that crime has also increased. We know that it has. One can no longer deny that link.
Many young people are using drugs because the use of drugs is linked with ignorance, with poverty, with the absence of hope and with unemployment. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, drugs offer relief—an escape from reality. Reality is harsh and unpleasant for many people, especially young people, and they want relief. It is escapism. It does not work, because one has to return to reality. It is the people who do not want to return to reality who tend to move on to harder and harder drugs, seeking a bigger and bigger fix because they cannot bear to accept reality.
The reality for many of our young people is one of hopelessness in our society. Where are drugs most readily available, and where is all the criminal activity associated with a supply of drugs rampant? The answer is, in the black communities, especially in the United States and indeed in this country, because those communities make up the social group that finds it most difficult to secure a stake in United States society or in this society. I do not want to make too much of that in a short debate, but a royal commission should be prepared to consider those issues.
We have a drugs problem in my constituency and in the borough of Newham. Newham is the most deprived local authority area in the country, so it tends to fit in with the image that I am describing, but the problem is not of cannabis as much as of solvent abuse—glue-sniffing. The substances that are used are not illegal as such. They are freely available in shops and people are able to buy them. In many ways, we tend to be sidetracked in the House on to issues such as cannabis, but there is an awful lot of abuse of substances that are available in shops which inflict far more damage on young people's health than cannabis would ever do. That has not been mentioned until now.
I say without fear of contradiction that drug abuse is a serious social problem in this country and elsewhere, and I think that it has two main causes: first, drugs are illegal and, secondly, large numbers of people use drugs. When it comes to it, what are we going to do with the 3 million to 5 million people in this country who use cannabis? Are we going to put them all in gaol? It will not work. One can no more ban the use of cannabis in this country than one could ban prostitution.
We have taken a step to regulate and control prostitution. I think that that is the way forward for the use of cannabis—regulation and control. When we do that, through legalisation, we shall be able to tackle the serious social problems that the use of illegal substances poses to our society.

Mr. George Howarth: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on raising this important subject and in hoping that it promotes a wider debate on some of the issues. It is important also for another reason. The problem is not confined to inner-city areas. It affects outer estates, such as those that I represent, and rural market towns. Every part of Great Britain is affected to some extent by the abuse of drugs by young people. It is important, therefore, that we discuss those matters in the House and develop strategies for tackling those problems.
I start by setting the record straight on the position of the official Opposition on the legalisation of cannabis. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) characteristically and generously said that the opinions that he expressed were very much and distinctively his own, not those of the Labour party, and I can confirm that that is precisely the case. I might say of my hon. Friend, for whom I have boundless affection and respect, that, in relation to that issue, although perhaps not to many others, he shows an uncharacteristic attachment to market forces. However, no doubt he will reconcile that apparent contradiction in the fullness of time.

Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the legalisation of cannabis. Does he hold an opinion on whether the clear vote at the Liberal Democrat conference to legalise cannabis was helpful or unhelpful?

Mr. Simon Hughes: The deputy leader of the Labour party said that it was helpful.

Mr. Howarth: I shall come to that point. The hon. Gentleman is trying to prompt me into saying what the deputy leader of our party may or may not have said. I can hold a speech together without the hon. Gentleman's help.
I shall come to the Liberal Democrats in a moment. The Labour party believes that, whatever the merits or otherwise of cannabis, the party would send out entirely the wrong message to young people if it were to subscribe to the legalisation argument. The real crisis in our society at present is that too many young people become involved in the drug culture, for many different reasons. It is not appropriate for an official, a political party or the House to send out a message in favour of the liberalisation of any drug laws—particularly those regarding cannabis, which is commonly available. We do not support the legalisation move.
I have listened to the various exchanges between the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Southwark and Bermondsey, but I am none the wiser as a result. Whatever happened at the Liberal Democrat conference, the impression created —

Mr. John Whittingdale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I shall finish the point that I am making and then give way, although my speaking time is limited.
Whatever the precise wording of the motion that was passed at the Liberal Democrat conference, the message that went out to young people in particular is that the Liberal Democrats condone the misuse of certain categories of soft drugs. I understand that the Liberal Democrats were attempting to have a serious debate and I am not knocking them for that. However, we must be very careful about the messages that we send to young people. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale).

Mr. Whittingdale: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall try to help him in his confusion about Liberal Democrat views. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrat conference voted clearly for an amendment in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis which made no mention of a royal commission? Does he agree that that was deeply irresponsible?

Mr. Howarth: I do not wish to follow that path. I want to make some serious points—I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman is not making a serious point—but, to be honest, I have not read the text of the amendment or the motion, as the hon. Gentleman has clearly done. I do not want to get involved in trying to confirm what did or did not happen at the Liberal Democrat conference. It is probably the most irrelevant of all events in the political calendar.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that of more relevance are the two reports that were published last year—one from a right-wing think tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and another from a left-wing think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research—both of which concluded that ending the prohibition of soft drugs will cut the profits made by the people pushing those drugs, reduce consumption of those drugs and also reduce drug-related crime?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has known and trenchant views on that matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, he shows an uncharacteristic faith in the ability of market forces to resolve the problem. I do not subscribe to that view. I think that I have dealt sufficiently with the issue of the legalisation of cannabis.
In talking about young people and drug misuse and abuse, it is important to differentiate very clearly—as the hon. Member for Eastbourne has done in choosing the title for the debate—between younger people who use drugs and older drug users. The problems of each group are different and therefore must be dealt with differently.
Young people often first use drugs experimentally—that does not excuse it; I am simply commenting that it happens. In most cases, a brief period of experimentation with drugs is followed by abstaining from any drug misuse. Although most young people who experiment with drugs do not misuse or abuse them in later life—we are dealing with the pathways argument—a minority move on to addiction and the misuse and abuse of often harder drugs. We must be concerned about that pathway which exists, albeit in a minority of cases.

Mr. Waterson: On that point, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statistics in the House of Commons Library research paper which show that 40 per cent. of deaths due to solvent abuse in 1991 resulted from apparent first-time drug use?

Mr. Howarth: That is another kind of abuse of substances which are readily available in high street stores. It is a serious problem and one about which we must be equally concerned. I am conscious of the fact that, because I have given way so much, I have taken up more time than I should have. I shall try to move towards a conclusion.
The Green Paper entitled "Tackling Drugs Together" is very welcome. I wrote to the Lord President on behalf of the Opposition and, despite a few criticisms, I confirmed our support for the approach taken in the Green Paper. We must try to build a consensus across the Floor of the House and within the Government themselves: first, that the problems of drug misuse and abuse must be dealt with; and, secondly, that they should not be tolerated.
On that point, I do not believe that the case for reducing the number of customs control staff has been established properly. The Labour party and those who work in the service fear that the Government's recent announcement about redundancies in that area may curtail the ability of Customs and Excise to intercept—as it has done so successfully in the past—the illegal importation of drugs. I hope that the Minister will give more attention to that matter.
It is important that we send out two messages to the community: first, drugs are harmful and wrong; and, secondly, there is a growing consensus that the problem must be dealt with as part of mainstream politics and government. Those messages should be upheld at every opportunity.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I do not often have the opportunity to welcome a consensus approach in the House, but I welcome the offer by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on behalf of the Opposition for a consensus approach to this matter. I also welcome his positive response to the Green Paper.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about customs officials, the Government intend to target their effectiveness and we do not wish to see their excellent work in seizing illegal drugs undermined in any way. I


welcome the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the decriminalisation of cannabis as a way of tackling the scourge of drugs. I hope that members of the Liberal party will come to their senses and join in that consensus in the House so that we can send the clear message that we will have no truck with drugs in our country.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister is being uncharacteristically unfair. Surely he must understand by now exactly what occurred at the conference when we asked that a royal commission be set up to consider six matters, one of which was the decriminalisation of drugs. That is a most serious matter. Is the Minister suggesting that we should not have discussed it and opted in favour of establishing a royal commission?

Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Lady remembers how previous Governments set up royal commissions in order to kick problems into touch. Royal commissions take a very long time to consider matters and we must deal with the serious drugs problem immediately.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) distanced himself from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) when he said that the Scottish Liberal conference had voted for decriminalisation and added that, of course, in our federal system it does not make policy for the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Lady speaks for the Scottish party and she must take the consequences of what her party members voted for at that conference. It would send out a very positive message if she were to confirm that the Liberal Democrats will join the Labour party and the Government in denying that decriminalisation of drugs is the way forward. I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady to allow her the opportunity to do that now.

Mrs. Michie: As the Minister invites me to intervene, let me explain again that the Scottish Liberal party made a decision that was supported by a majority, although many voted against it, including me. Is the Minister saying that we are not allowed to discuss such a serious matter and reach a conclusion? The conclusion that the Scottish Liberal party reached was that a federal United Kingdom Parliament would then legislate on such matters. That was the conclusion of the Scottish Liberal party, to which the federal party then has to listen.

Mr. Forsyth: Of course I am not saying that the Liberal conference in Scotland does not have the right to vote for the decriminalisation of cannabis—I am most grateful that the hon. Lady confirmed that it did so—but it is a thoroughly irresponsible message to send to the country and the Liberal party must take the consequences for what its members decide. It is no good Liberal Members coming to the House mealy-mouthed, trying to distance themselves from their decision. If the Liberal party is serious about tackling the problem of drugs in the country, it ought to join the Government and the official Opposition in having no truck with decriminalisation as a way forward.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend find the hon. Lady's intervention rather strange, given that, as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which discussed drug abuse in

Scotland, she voted for the Labour chairman's draft report which called for the decriminalisation of cannabis and voted against an amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), seeking to remove that from the report?

Mr. Forsyth: Like all of us in the House, the hon. Lady is entitled to take a view. It is clear that the Liberal party sees decriminalisation as the way forward. We do not.

Mrs. Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: As I referred to the hon. Lady, I shall give way once more to her.

Mrs. Michie: That is kind of the Minister. If he speaks to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), he will find out exactly what happened in the Scottish Affairs Committee when I was not allowed to move an amendment on the Chairman's report, so it was put out lock, stock and barrel.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady is stuck with a party which has voted for the decriminalisation of cannabis, and all the protests, floundering and flummery we have heard this morning show that, in their hearts, she and her colleagues know that it is an absurd policy. I feel very sorry for them and hope they will use all the power and rhetoric at their command to get the policy changed. It is deeply irresponsible and underlines more clearly than anything else how unfitted the Liberal party is to hold any office or responsibility in Britain.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He must realise that we voted to set up a royal commission, and the party political posturing by his party does him no justice whatsoever. Drug abuse is a serious issue and everyone in the House should be working towards eradicating it.

Mr. Forsyth: If it is such a serious issue, it is a pity that the hon. Lady was not here to hear the excellent debate, instead of cruising in at the end of the debate. If she considers it to be so serious, I should have thought that she would want to hear the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. I congratulate him on choosing this topic.
It is particularly difficult to assess the extent of drug misuse among young people, not least because it is a clandestine, illegal activity. However, all the evidence shows that drugs are a growing menace, particularly among the young.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, in the inner cities 42 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds and 44 per cent. of 20 to 24-year-olds have taken drugs at some time. Drugs are not restricted to inner cities; they afflict rural communities as well. There is not a community or school that is immune from the menace, nor is drug misuse a problem peculiar to Britain; all the indicators show it is a growing problem across Europe.
Whatever the experience of others, however, we must be concerned about what is happening in Britain. Why do youngsters get involved in drugs? For many teenagers, any illicit drug use tends to be occasional or experimental rather than habitual. For those young people who at the weekend take cannabis, LSD, amphetamines or other drugs, it is no longer a conspicuous statement of anti-authoritarianism; indeed, it is much more a matter of fashion, of "picking and mixing" among licit and illicit


intoxicants, in the words of Professor Howard Parker of the university of Manchester. Some of the key leisure industries of our time—popular music and, above all, television, provide the necessary backdrop by placing drug misuse prominently in the fast lane of soap opera life. Key developments in the popularisation of drug use include its spread among young people of all social classes, coupled with the growth of an extremely pervasive black market.
Drug misuse attacks the fabric of our society and the welfare of individuals in different ways. We know that drugs may directly cause or contribute to other criminal behaviour. Without doubt, a proportion of all acquisitive crime is committed to obtain the funds to purchase drugs, but those funds also come from a wide range of sources—legitimate earnings, state benefits, prostitution, begging, and so on.
Drug addiction is a serious health problem in Britain. Addiction or experimentation with drugs has serious and dangerous physical effects. Young people need to know that they can never be sure what substance they are taking, how strong it is and how their minds or bodies will react. The deaths of young people who have taken Ecstasy at raves, perhaps for the first time, are all too tragic a reminder of the ultimate price which is paid.
As well as the physical consequences, drug misuse can have a devastating effect on a young person's life at school and college and in employment, training and personal and social relationships. Taking drugs is illegal and there is a real risk of prosecution or even imprisonment. Family life may be disrupted by the worry that children may be involved in drugs. Families can be thrown into turmoil when a young person is found to have a drugs problem.
On a wider scale, drugs can harm entire communities. The greatest concern is crime committed by addicts to pay for drugs. Drugs misusers, particularly those dependent on drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine, can become involved in committing acquisitive crimes to help to fund it.
Drugs are a threat to the whole of society, but the young are particularly at risk. Our first response to the problem must be to reduce the supply of drugs as much as possible. There are three essential elements to our fight against the dealers and traffickers who supply drugs to young people. First, we must have effective, vigorous enforcement action. Secondly, genuine tough penalties must be available to the courts to deal with those whose involvement in that evil trade is established. There was

consensus in the House today that the pushers and traffickers of drugs should be given no place to hide. The legislative framework is already in place. Trafficking in drugs such as cocaine and heroin carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Thirdly, we must ensure that the courts have the powers to seize drug traffickers' ill-gotten assets, and we introduced that power in the Drugs Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
I believe that, with concerted and innovative action on the prevention and education front, we can have a positive influence on young people's attitudes and behaviour. We have examples that such changes can be made: witness the 60 per cent. reduction over the past 10 years in the number of fatal and serious road casualties involving drink driving—a reduction due in no small measure to the publicity campaign which started in the late 1970s.
We have heard today about the terrible threat posed by drugs. Drugs are widely available and young people are experimenting with them and putting themselves at great risk. Those who get hooked risk their health, the well-being. of their families and their lives. Drugs also generate crime and damage the lives of many innocent people in the process.
We must tackle drugs misuse together. We look to the police and customs to continue their vital work in tracking down the traffickers and dealers and in intercepting the drugs being targeted at us.
We look to the courts to punish severely those found guilty of trafficking and dealing. But we must all become involved to protect our young people from the scourge: parents, teachers, youth workers, police officers, probation officers and representatives of all the other agencies involved must work together with young people, with sensitivity and understanding, to inform and educate them about the dangers of drug misuse. Co-operation and partnership are the key.
The Green Paper contains our strategic plan, which proposes the most far-reaching action plan on drugs. It focuses on what the Government and other agencies, nationally and locally, can do over the next three years to tackle the problem. The strategy is founded on the principle of partnership. At the heart of that strategy are proposals to help young people to resist drugs. I am sure that the House would wish to do all that it can to achieve that important goal. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne on raising the subject in today's debate and welcome the Labour party's constructive approach to the issue.

Breast Cancer Services

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I shall first explain why I am introducing a debate on this distressing subject. First, in purely chronological terms, an all-party group on breast cancer was formed about one year ago today. The hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who are present—who were instrumental in setting it up were rightly determined that the group should not consist only of women. I think that that is why I was urged to attend meetings and was installed as secretary.
I have attended all the group's meetings. A string of experts have talked to the group over the past year to explain the problems and issues involved in breast cancer. We have all been struck by the unanimous message given by those experts, and it is that message that I and others want to relay today.
The second reason for the debate is a particularly Scottish one. Half way through last year, a campaign was formed in Scotland called the Scottish Breast Cancer Campaign. It has been a truly remarkable campaign; it was begun by a woman of tremendous drive and determination called Audrey Jones. With great energy and organisation, she created a network throughout Scotland that has campaigned on breast cancer services and research. It is on those two issues that I want to focus this morning.
The network's efforts culminated last Tuesday in a magnificent lobby of Parliament and a march on Downing street, with a petition of more than 200,000 signatures, obtained in less than six months. That was merely the end of the first phase of the campaign and the group is now determined that the campaign should link up with groups in England—it wants a United Kingdom campaign. That is why I am pleased that today's debate is on not just a Scottish issue, but a United Kingdom one. The problems and challenges are the same in Scotland, England and Wales.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says about this being a United Kingdom-wide debate, but is not it deeply disappointing that there is no Scottish Office Minister present to listen to it?

Mr. Chisholm: I would have to agree with my hon. Friend on that, but we shall see what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), says. I wrote to the Scottish Minister responsible for health, who is in another place—which always creates problems during Scottish health debates—and suggested that he should have a word with the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he has managed to give at least a brief message to the Minister who is to reply.
As I learnt more about the subject, I became more aware of the scale of the problem. I was immediately struck by the horrendous statistics on breast cancer in this country. I learnt that one in 12 women is likely to develop it and two thirds of those women will die. According to the chief medical officer, the survival rate here is worse than in other European countries and north America. The mortality rates for breast cancer in the United Kingdom

are the worst in the world. Another stark fact that drives the message home is that breast cancer is the single biggest killer for women between the ages of 35 and 54. A sobering and shocking thought is that, in the course of today's one-and-a-half hour debate, three more women will die of breast cancer.
It is not just the statistics that are horrendous—we have all heard terrible stories about the contrasts in treatment that women receive. We hear of misdiagnoses, long waiting times for women being referred for initial diagnosis and inadequate treatment. Balanced against that, we also hear of excellent treatment in many of the breast cancer units, such as that in my home city of Edinburgh.
The stories about things going wrong are not just media scare stories. The fundamental message given to the group by the experts was that there is a tremendous unevenness in the treatment received by women. That is the key message that the experts have given to us—they want something done, and it is up to us as politicians to take up that message and do something about it.
One of the experts who spoke to us was Professor Karol Sikora, professor of clinical oncology at Hammersmith. He has expressed the problem as follows:
Britain's high death rate for breast cancer is not due to lack of medical knowledge, but to bad management. America has a higher incidence of breast cancer—one in eight of the female population. But proportionally a staggering 50 per cent. fewer women die. The difference is that in America diagnosis and treatment are organized better.
In Britain, surviving breast cancer is a lottery. The recent mortality-rate 'atlas' released by the Department of Health shows shocking geographical variations.
The problem can be considered in terms of when people are referred for treatment and, more importantly, where people are referred for treatment. There was an example of the time problem in Scotland recently at Ninewells hospital in Dundee. Due to a staff shortage, some women had to wait three months before they were seen for an initial diagnosis—because of the campaigning in Scotland, that problem appears to have been sorted out. Women must be referred promptly once there is a suspicion that something is wrong.
The issue of where women are referred is even more important. According to the experts who talked to us, the key issue is whether women go to a specialist unit where there are experts who deal with breast cancer on a regular basis. The experts said that the most alarming factor was that so many women are still referred to general surgeons or medical staff who do not deal with the specific problem for a great enough proportion of their time. The experts explained that that was the fundamental problem in the organisation of breast cancer services.
I was alarmed by the statistics for some—I think, two—Thames regions. Only 20 per cent. of women referred for breast cancer surgery went to hospitals where more than 100 women were operated on in a year. Some 25 per cent. went to hospitals where between 75 and 99 women were dealt with, 20 per cent. went to hospitals where between 50 and 74 women were dealt with and 22 per cent. went to hospitals where between 25 and 49 women were dealt with. Some 9 per cent. went to hospitals where between 10 and 24 women were operated on for breast cancer.
I asked for figures for the whole of England and Wales this week, but was told that they were not available. I received figures for Scotland and they show that the scale of the problem is not quite so dramatic there. However,


we know that many women in Scotland go to general surgeons who are not used to dealing with people who have breast cancer.
It is the experts who are telling us all that. Some medical practitioners are saying that some of their colleagues should not deal with breast cancer because they do not spend a sufficient amount of their time dealing with it. We are told that half of women are referred to general surgeons when they should be referred to specialists. That is the core of the organisational problem that has to be tackled. One result of that is that the treatment that women receive is not as good as it should be. Without getting too technical, I can give one example of that.
I am told that when women are operated on, lymph glands should be sampled routinely. It is staggering that 50 per cent. of women under the age of 50 who should have such sampling do not get it. We hope that that will change. We are told that women under 50 should be given chemotherapy routinely, but the experts tell us that that often does not happen. The problem has been graphically described to us.
The answer has to some extent been taken on board by the expert advisory group on cancer set up by the Government. It has come up with the model of cancer services centralised in cancer centres, of which 20 are proposed for England and Wales, and cancer units, of which a much larger number is proposed. I thought that the same model was to be introduced in Scotland, but when I wrote to the Minister of State, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, about the matter, he said that the model might not be appropriate. At present, we have five cancer centres and no cancer units. I believe now, however, that the Scottish Office is beginning to take the problem on board. In Scotland, we certainly need a large number of cancer units to complement the five cancer centres.

Dr. Godman: I am given to understand that Lord Fraser, who is the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for health, is to appear before members of the Scottish Grand Committee to he questioned on health matters. Perhaps that would be an appropriate moment to question him more closely on this important subject.

Mr. Chisholm: My hon. Friend's point illustrates to our colleagues the difficulties that we have in Scotland in questioning the Scottish Minister responsible for health.
The best general structure of cancer services has been agreed, but specialised breast units are needed within it to complement the cancer centres. The British Breast Group has published a study and argued for specialist breast units. It said that they should be located either within the cancer centres or within the cancer units. So everyone knows what the correct model is.
Within the specialist breast units, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists, nurse specialists and others would all work in co-operation in teams. It has been agreed that that is the correct model, but implementation of the model may well be another matter. There are two sets of problems with implementation. They are resource problems and problems connected with the internal market. We do not want to be too party political on this issue, but we must face up to the fact that the internal market creates obstacles.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: My hon. Friend was at the same meeting that I attended, at which consultants and

professors told us that the abolition of the regional health authorities was a great worry because they had played such a crucial role in setting up the screening programme. The internal market is fragmenting the programme.

Mr. Chisholm: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that purely English issue. I have had correspondence with the British Medical Association about the effect of reorganisation on screening. I hope to read some of its letter later to convey that particularly English problem.
Professor Karol Sikora has said that about £300 million would be needed to provide the required number of specialists, including breast care nurses, and additional equipment for the units. That nettle will have to be grasped if the model is to be implemented. As for the internal market problems, Professor Sikora made the point that the development of the internal market meant that purchasers were less likely to buy from specialist units because they tended to be more expensive. That issue will come up next week when the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund brings out a directory of services to be provided to GPs so that they can refer patients to the best unit. There will be a problem in whether health boards have contracts or would be willing to have such contracts with those units.
There are also problems on the provider side. Many provider units may not want to lose their breast cancer work as part of their general surgery. In a private conversation, a leading consultant told me that, particularly in England, many general surgeons wanted to keep the work because it was part of their private practice. That is another issue that will have to be tackled. It is important that breast surgery and breast cancer treatment should be on separate contracts. They should not be part of general surgery contracts. They should be contracted for separately. That is another recommendation of the British Breast Group report.
We are told that one of the differences between Britain and other countries in its provision of breast cancer services is that we have far fewer oncologists, both clinical and medical. That is another funding issue, which is also connected to the issue of special units. I have been told in answers to parliamentary questions to which I have received replies this week that the number of oncologists has not increased very much. There are slightly more for the whole of the United Kingdom. We now have 272 clinical and 68 medical oncologists. To put that into perspective, I am told that there are 2,500 medical oncologists in France.
We have also been told that each clinical oncologist in Britain sees 560 new patients a year. The recommendation is 350. We are told that in America they see 200 and in Norway they see a staggering figure of only 75. So there is the problem of the number of oncologists, who are essential to the work of breast cancer units and general cancer units and centres.
Apart from the problem with the number of oncologists, there is a problem with their funding. That became an issue in Scotland last year. As a result, I tabled a question about the matter. I was told that seven out of the 11 medical oncologists in Scotland last year were funded by charity. I was not being mischievous when I tabled another question last week. I simply wanted to know how much the position had changed by now. I am told that the Government think that five are funded by charity out of


12. Something strange is going on there which will have to be investigated. At least the Scottish Office had an answer. The English Department of Health does not know how many oncologists are funded by charity. We have been told by the experts who came to our group that it is a large number. That is a scandalous position, given the key nature of their work in the model of cancer treatment that is proposed.
Apart from their work in treating breast cancer and other forms of cancer, medical oncologists are essential for research. Research is the second aspect of today's debate. Once again, we are confronted by the two problems of resources and the internal market. On the resource side, the experts—I keep referring to them deliberately because all that I know has been told to me by the people who know about those matters—are unanimous in what they say. They tell me that in Britain uniquely a large proportion of cancer research is funded by charity.
We have been shown graphs, which show that in other countries research is funded mainly by Government money, with a little charity money. In Britain, it is the reverse. That is a fundamental problem, not only because it is the Government's responsibility to fund research, but because charitable funding in the nature of things is short term. The experts say that they need long-term funding. Charitable funding also fluctuates. I noticed recently that the funds of one of the cancer charities fell by £6 million last year. That creates problems for research.
I have tabled some questions on breast cancer research in particular. It appears that there was an increase in funding between 1991–92 and the following year. Some money—about £700,000—came from the Department of Health and less than £100,000 came from the Scottish Office. Proportionately, however, that was a greater contribution than that of the English Department of Health. The Medical Research Council money, being the main source of Government funding, was £1.6 million in 1991–92 and £3.1 million in 1992–93, which appears to be progress. However, I note that last March the Minister responsible for science said, in referring to the £3.1 million:
Included in that figure was £836,000 which was directly related to basic laboratory research into cancer."—[Official Report, 29 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 680.]
Of course, that is vital work, but I wonder whether the basis for the figures has been changed from year to year.
I do not want to quibble, but we need to put into perspective what £3.1 million means compared with the sort of money that is needed. A graphic illustration of that is the fact that the Royal Marsden hospital is trying to raise £15 million for just one project. Professor Baum, Marsden's professor of surgery who deals with breast cancer, told us that that research was absolutely essential. He said that it was to look at the molecular biology of normal cells and the genetic defects that result in their transformation into cancerous cells. He said that that was the most hopeful area for a research breakthrough. The context, therefore, is that £15 million is needed just for the one project, yet total Government funding for breast cancer amounts to only just over £3 million. There is obviously a funding problem.
There is also an internal market problem with research. An article in the British Medical Journal on 13 August 1994 by the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research showed the results of a survey of contributors to clinical trials in breast cancer. The survey found that half had difficulties, many of which sprung from the nature of the internal market in the health service.
The article stated:
The financial imperative from a market based NHS to avoid the 'unnecessary' expense in undertaking a trial is the basis of real conflict. If, for example, clinicians really are uncertain about which of two treatments is best, why not settle for the cheaper? But the NHS has a commitment to improve treatment. This requires a commitment to undertake and complete trials, accepting that such a strategy carries financial implications …A problem now being encountered"—
and this repeats something that I mentioned in a different context earlier —
that is a direct result of the new purchaser-provider agreements is that patients are being treated in local hospitals rather than being referred to specialist centres. In recent years several studies have shown that there is a survival advantage if treatment is given at a specialist centre, and this advantage will be lost if contracts are increasingly given to local hospitals that lack specialist cancer services. Also, as it is generally the specialist centres which enter patients into trials a decrease in referrals to cancer centres means that there is a reduced pool of patients being invited to participate.
The article explains that there are also problems because of the new set-up with trusts relating to insurance, the storing of samples and increased paperwork. Leading British clinical researchers have expressed concerns about the new health service set-up as well as about the underlying funding problems.
I wish briefly to raise two aspects related to research. One area where research is required is screening. That has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. There are many issues relating to screening. A British Medical Journal article just two weeks ago said that it is time for Britain to screen women over 50 every two years. Research has shown that, among women being screened in their third year, the number found with cancerous growths was much the same as the number among the unscreened. In other words, those women should have been screened after two, not three years.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Surely even every two years is not adequate for screening. What is really needed is a comprehensive public education programme so that women constantly screen themselves. A lump in a breast can become fatal within a few weeks of it first appearing. We need a huge public education programme to raise the profile of the issue, so that women constantly screen themselves. There is no substitute for that.

Mr. Chisholm: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a point, but it cannot replace the screening programme. We should follow the example of other countries where a two-year interval is normal for women over 50.
The article said that better results would be obtained if two mammograms were taken—indeed, a 20 per cent. improvement in the detection rate. It said that there would be another 15 per cent. improvement if two radiologists read the results. The article also said that considerable financial and staffing implications were involved in bringing about such improvements.
Another issue is screening of the over-65s. That matter is often forgotten. Although the largest number of women who develop breast cancer are over 65, there is no routine screening for them. There is also the issue of high-risk young women. I am aware of the debate about screening young women—I will not go into that now—but something must be done to ensure that such women are looked after properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax mentioned the effect of the Health Authorities Bill on the screening programme. I feel duty bound to read out a brief excerpt from a letter from the British Medical Association:
We remain unclear on how the programme will operate after HA reorganisation …All cancer registrations and efficient data handling depend upon integrated computer systems. The complexities and financial implications of replicating this at district level are considerable. Devolving the programme down to local level will demand many more personnel in order to make medical and clinical audit meaningful. It is unlikely to be cost-effective at local level and clinical audit between health authorities and providers is bound to be compromised.
There is great concern about the environmental causes of cancer. A recent television programme featured the pesticide lindane. I and other hon. Members wrote to Ministers about that. Lord Fraser, the Scottish Minister responsible for health, said that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides was currently reviewing lindane's agricultural uses. I hope that the review will be completed speedily, because organochlorine pesticides are banned in most countries. Lindane is the only one still widely used in this country. Indeed, its use has doubled during the past seven years. I hope that the experts will speedily look at the evidence from Israel, which was presented in the television programme, and also at evidence from America, which suggests that lindane stimulates the production of a hormone that damages DNA.
I want to explain how America has dealt with the problem of breast cancer. Figures that I gave earlier show that although breast cancer occurs more frequently in America—one in eight women rather than one in 12—proportionately, 50 per cent. fewer women die. Yet America, with a so much better record than Britain, had an enormous campaign. I like to compare it with our Scottish campaign, although it was on a different scale. Proportionately, of course, the two campaigns are quite similar because the American campaign collected 2.5 million signatures, while the Scottish campaign has already collected 200,000—so in terms of population, the Scottish campaign has probably done better.
The American campaign was thrown on President Clinton's desk and he took action immediately. His Health Secretary convened a conference, which established a national action plan for breast cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax may say something more about that later. Part of that action plan was a shifting of $210 million from the defence budget to breast cancer research. The British Government should look to that example. This country's problem, as I have explained, is more serious than America's, so a correspondingly greater response is required of our Government.
The Scottish campaign and its members are my inspiration and guiding light on this issue. Their petition asked for more resources for specialist units and for more Government funding for breast cancer research. They are determined to continue their campaign and to extend it

throughout the United Kingdom. With the help of several hon. Members, that is what they intend to do in the months ahead.
I know that there is a great deal of activity on this front. The Select Committee is investigating the matter; my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will introduce a Bill on this very subject. We are determined that this most distressing issue gets the response from the Government that it most assuredly deserves and requires.

12 noon

Mr. Piers Merchant: I compliment the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on drawing the House's attention to the serious subject of breast cancer. As he rightly said, the incidence of breast cancer in England and Wales is the highest in the world; it is in fact five times as high as in Japan, causing about 15,000 deaths a year. It is interesting to note the distinctly different impact of breast cancer on the various socio-economic groups in this country: there is 50 per cent. more breast cancer among group 1 women than among women in groups 4 and 5.
The hon. Member for Leith was right to draw attention to the need for improved breast cancer services. I entirely agree with that objective. He was also right to draw attention to the problems that there have been with treatment and care. We should not, however, underestimate the difficulties of judging the best course of action at any particular time. Many of these problems have arisen simply because of a lack of knowledge or because of faulty medical judgments—entirely understandable, but based on limited scientific knowledge of the illness.
The hon. Gentleman was right to juxtapose the issues of services and research, because the former so crucially depend on the latter. It was to be regretted that he did not draw enough attention to the real progress that has been made and to the distinct improvement in the services that are available. First and most important is the national screening programme. This country was the first in the European Community to bring in comprehensive national screening—an important international first, and a sign of the importance that the Government attach to dealing with the problems posed by breast cancer.
The hon. Gentleman also did not draw enough attention to the Calman report, published last year, which stressed the need for reorganisation and a national programme to ensure that the swiftest, most effective forms of treatment were brought to bear on women who were found to have developed breast cancer. The report distinguished between three important levels of care. First, it stressed primary care; secondly, the need for designated units; and, thirdly, the need for designated cancer centres. Speaking about the importance of specialist centres, the hon. Member for Leith did not give sufficient emphasis to the relevant part played by primary care services and by the designated units at a more local level, which are an important part of the process.
The hon. Gentleman was right to stress the need for similar standards of care throughout the country. He was right to focus on the deficiencies in that area, but I was not sure that his simple emphasis on centres of excellence was necessarily the best approach.
The Calman report's conclusions have already been acted on in many areas. I should like to draw the House's attention to the real progress that has been made in the


Bromley area, which includes my constituency. Bromley hospital is starting its first breast care clinic later this month. It will be a multidisciplinary clinic, and there will be one surgeon who is already there and a new one who is a specialist in breast cancer. At the same clinic there will be a breast cancer specialist oncologist, and a nurse counsellor who has been specially trained for the purpose. Finally, there will be a personal prosthetics expert on hand to help women who may need support.
All that specialist provision will be available at one local clinic. That is a big step forward. It is important to ensure that, while the regional centres of excellence are available when needed, there are also local, accessible services to provide a quick response for women who have tested positive or who have been referred on by their GPs. This saves waiting and anxiety, because it enables testing and results to be acted on locally and swiftly.
I am pleased about this step forward in my area, and I hope that it will be repeated across the country. Apart from producing a great improvement in care, it will also enable much of the later treatment to be carried out locally in a co-ordinated fashion. There will be facilities for performing chemotherapy and some surgical procedures, but when necessary patients will automatically be referred to one of the nearby regional centres of excellence.
There is no question of any patient being given second-rate treatment or being diverted to some secondary, poorer tier of service instead of to the regional centre if that centre is the right place for the patient. The clinical judgment on where a patient should be treated, however, will depend on how her form of cancer has presented. As most people involved in the field will know, that will vary considerably from one case to another.
I should like to refer briefly to the important screening programme. The Forrest committee reported in 1987 that screening was the single most important way of reducing deaths from breast cancer, and predicted that as many as 25 per cent. of deaths from it could be prevented by the year 2000, giving an average 20 years more life to the people who were afflicted. If everyone called attended screenings, 40 per cent. of deaths could be prevented. That was why breast screening was introduced nationally.
I should like to enter a few words of caution, although I do not want them misinterpreted, because I fully support breast screening and believe it to be important. It would be wrong to think that screening is a panacea and that no problems will result from it. There are four or five areas of difficulty, of which the first is false expectation. The fear is that, with the availability of universal screening, people will relax and think that the problem has been solved: because screening is available, early detection is possible, so a cure will follow. That is of course not correct. A cure does not always follow, even with very early detection. There is of course a much greater statistical chance of a cure, but it is still limited.
Secondly, there is the difficulty of unnecessary treatment. Any suspected form of cancer detected at an early stage is the subject of medical uncertainty as to whether it will develop into malignant cancer or turn out to be benign. There is thus the danger of unnecessary treatment following on from mass screening. More research needs to be done on that; it would certainly not he beneficial to put women through the trauma and pain of treatment if that treatment is later found to be entirely

unnecessary. It is also a complete waste of resources when money and expertise are devoted to putting right a problem that was not there in the first place. Important research is required in that respect. There is always the problem of cancers being missed because of technical limits on screening processes. However efficient they may be, because cancer varies from individual to individual some cases will be overlooked. Serious failures can occur in the computerised administration and follow-up systems, and much attention should be paid to making them as perfect as possible. We must be realistic, however, and accept that perfection cannot be achieved in dealing with so many people, and that there will always be an element of failure.
The extent of screening, medical judgment, the age of screening, and how frequent it should be—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—type of screening, the radiation and other risks and other forms of care should be researched. Over the years, experts have changed considerably their assessment of appropriate treatment—whether there should be minor or major surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy and, if so, which comes first.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) was right to stress that research is the most important factor in tackling breast cancer. Research will dictate the most effective action in detection and treatment. Let us hope that it will ultimately produce answers to the causes and development of breast cancer, and that steps can then be taken to prevent it. After all, prevention is always better than a cure.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on securing his Adjournment debate. He is a hard-working member and secretary of the all-party group on breast cancer. I am joint chair with the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). Its members have been on a learning curve for 12 months, but the group is a success.
I became more interested in the subject in 1992, when I was visited by two breast care nurses who were worried about the care and service given to suffers in the Yorkshire region. I commissioned a survey of the 12 regional health authorities in England to obtain a better picture. They were asked to provide details of the number of their breast clinics, breast care nurses and support groups by district, to assess provision and the contribution that each region was making to the national screening programme.
It is important to understand the scale of the problem. The British Breast Group's latest statistics show that the incidence of breast cancer in the UK is 25,000 cases per annum, which is among the highest in the world. Mortality is also high, at 16,000 deaths a year. Apparently, the survival rate in this country is poorer than in other European countries or the United States. The cause of high incidence and poor survival is unknown, but the latter may partly be attributable to poor management of the disease, which should be seriously examined.
According to research, the death rate from breast cancer has remained virtually unchanged over the past 50 years, and women are paying the price. They are the foot soldiers of that dreadful disease. Their suffering is


matched only by that of their families after the premature death of a sufferer. As my hon. Friend said, it is important not to view breast cancer as just a woman's disease because it brings devastation and grief to families affected by a sufferer's early death.
I pay tribute to Jacqui Bokowsky and my hard-pressed staff for their work on my report, which left me convinced that the screening programme saved lives because the Government acknowledged the importance of funding it and set aside £25 million.
The other important aspect was the national nature of the programme. There is great concern about the disbanding of regional health authorities, which played a crucial role in screening. They acted as the strategic authorities and did a superb job. I do not want to seem grudging, because I congratulate the Government on implementing that programme, which was an important step forward. I should like it to be extended to provide screening every two years and for the over 65s.
Unfortunately, four regional authorities did not complete the questionnaire and so our data are not comprehensive, but it was still a worthwhile exercise. The Library also provided statistics. Our findings were shocking. Some regions provided an excellent service while others were poor. It became clear that the service was fragmented, and geographical location had a bearing on the treatment that patients received. As one might expect, public transport problems and widespread poverty in some regions prevented some women from taking full advantage of the facilities on offer. As my hon. Friend said, some treatments vary widely.
In some inner cities, the only provision was the local out-patients department. The north-west region had breast clinic provision for only 0.29 per cent. of women per 100,000 population. In the Yorkshire and north-west Thames regions, the figure was 0.85 per cent. The survey also revealed that breast care nurses—one third of whom are provided by the Macmillan fund—form the mainstay of care groups and after-treatment. Their work is vital in providing continuing care to patients in hospital, but also in the community—to patients, their husbands and families. Those nurses are highly valued by women. Members of Bosom Friends, a support group in Bradford—some of whose members are very young—told me that their breast care nurses, in particular Norma Russell, make a tremendous difference to their lives. She works hours of overtime for nothing. Should we skimp on such a valued service?
Cuts have been made in the service, even though the incidence of breast cancer is as bad as ever. The working party's report was endorsed by the British Breast Group in July. It is adamant that services could be improved by grouping them together in specialist units. It states that all patients with breast disease should have access to the highest-quality care. It emphasises the importance of accurate and timely diagnosis, appropriate treatment and follow-up, effective communication, which means breast care nurses being in place, access to other specialist facilities and the provision of high-quality services between specialists from different disciplines. They include surgery, radiology, pathology, medical, clinical oncology, nursing and palliative care. It is essential that those multidisciplinary teams are at set up together in specialist units.
There will be a problem, because purchasers might be tempted to buy from a provider who is buying in the service of an oncologist for just a few hours a week. It will be nothing like as good as a specialist team. We know that because of the experience of the specialist hospitals in London, which are funded only in the short-term and are worried about their future. For anyone with an interest in the subject, the working party's report is well worth reading and it contains excellent recommendations.
Next week, I shall introduce a ten-minute Bill. It is an attempt to persuade the Government that we need a national action plan, such as that in America, to tackle this killer disease. The all-party group has had tremendous help from specialists in the past 12 months and, above all, from the women who have suffered from this dreadful disease. They want and deserve a national action plan. I hope that, when I present my Bill next week, the Government will take note of what they are saying to us.

Lady Olga Maitland: Last week, I visited the Cancer Research Institute, which has a world-class reputation for research and is based in my constituency. It works in close partnership with the Royal Marsden hospital.
I was given a guided tour by Professor Peter Garland, the chief executive of the institute, who leads 600 staff, making it the largest research institute in the world dedicated to the conquest of cancer. In particular, it has done excellent work in connection with breast cancer. It has recently pioneered important genetic work allowing it more accurately to identify those women at risk from breast cancer, who would consequently need special screening and preventive measures. It has been discovered, for instance, that some women are likely to have more than one gene, inherited from the family, which predisposes them towards the development of breast cancer. Indeed, it has been found that such genes are responsible for 5 to 10 per cent. of cancers, or about 1,000 of the 15,000-plus people who die each year in the United Kingdom from that disease. Perhaps a woman who has been identified as being at risk from breast cancer could be put on a trial new drug called Tamoxifen. It is part of a large, international trial, which, I hope, will substantially prevent the disease from starting in the first place.
The institute has a very exciting programme of work in curative measures for other areas of cancer: ranging from treatment of testicular cancer, 90 per cent. of which is treatable; to tremendous advances in treating ovarian cancer; to developing a vaccination to prevent and eliminate cancer of the cervix; to treating childhood leukaemias, and much other work. One will understand why I am so enormously proud that the institute is in my constituency.
The tantalising thing about success is the intense frustration which is felt: in wanting good work to continue, work which, of necessity, is held back through the constant battle against other competition for more resources. The real question that I ask the Government is: are they really giving essential research the full support that it undoubtedly deserves? I congratulate the Government on making the United Kingdom the first country in the European Union to develop and introduce breast cancer screening, but it is no use embarking on further major cancer screening programmes if the follow-through, in terms of research and treatment, is not


given the fullest possible back-up, otherwise one will be faced with only half a loaf—the cancer identified but not adequately treated. Successful treatments come about only by a heavy commitment to research.
The Medical Research Council works wonders, but it has a finite budget of around £210 million and must cover all diseases. The MRC is excellent for fundamental work, much of which is generic, but quite simply it does not have the resources to carry everything through to application. The university sector is mainly supported in terms of educational activities. Cancer is but one subject or specialty among many, and few universities can put together a critical mass for research.
The cancer charities raise and spend some £200 million a year, mainly on research but also to improve services. Without them, the quality and extent of research and service in the United Kingdom would be greatly weakened. I am not at all happy at the thought of cancer charities substituting for, rather than complementing, Government support. In the case of the Cancer Research Institute, £25 million is required to run 600-plus staff.
The Cancer Research Institute receives just £2.5 million from the Higher Education Funding Council for England; even it recognised, by its own calculations and procedures, a shortfall of at least £2 million, but it has refused to do anything about it, except for vague promises in the future. It is not acceptable to argue that if the council allocated more resources to the institute, it would be to the detriment of other universities, the great majority of which, by the HEFC's own assessment, rate less well, often markedly so. That shortfall is a substantial handicap to the institute's work. It makes up the shortfall with charitable moneys, which go towards heat, lighting and sundry expenses rather than the direct research for which it is intended. More than that, the HEFC is contradicting its own stated policy. It should be buying the very best research that it can. The fact is that it declines to do so in the case of the institute.
As Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the former chief executive of the Universities Funding Council, said:
Within each subject, it must therefore be right to concentrate most of the research funding in those departments that are likely to provide the best value for money.
In my view, he is absolutely right. It is very short-sighted to set up a ambitious screening programme without a fully supported research programme to give the very best possible treatment to all patients, otherwise one would be putting the cart before the horse by screening without the back-up research facilities to ensure that a sick woman becomes well or that we can prevent cancers from developing in the first place.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
We should all put on record our thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) for securing the debate and for speaking so well on the subject. As the report of the British Breast Group working party said:
Breast cancer mortality in the UK is the highest in the world. The reasons for this are poorly understood, but the wide dispersal services for breast cancer patients may be a contributing factor and certainly impedes clinical research.

If ever there were a brief description of the horrendous problem and of the need for the Government to introduce a national programme as quickly as possible, that is the summary of it. I hope that, next week, the ten-minute Bill to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) will get a clear run in the House, and that for once a ten-minute Bill will be successful in changing policy.
The reasons for breast cancer are poorly understood and are not evenly shared between different socio-economic groups. Indeed, if anything, it appears that the higher income groups suffer slightly more greatly from breast cancer, but they also have greater longevity anyway, so there may be a connection there. The incidence is much higher in western Europe and north America than in what we choose to call third-world countries. There may well be environmental and dietary connections. There are an awful lot of possible connections that need to be examined as rapidly as possible. In the United States, President Clinton responded quickly and magnificently to the request for a national action plan, and that is something for which ire—as must all the men and women throughout the United States who campaigned for it—be applauded. President Clinton should also be congratulated on the fact that he was prepared to shift money from the defence budget to a national action programme. I would love to think that the British Government will see the error of their ways in financing yet another Trident submarine and start shifting those resources into health care; we should all be better off as a result.
The seminar held in the House in December was, I think, very valuable: I could not attend, but I have read reports of it. A recurring theme was the need for multidisciplinary teams to work together from a single specialist centre. All the evidence suggests that the dispersal of services and the lack of centres of excellence lead to inadequate care. Moreover, they lead to differing standards of care: the system that decides to whom a patient is referred is almost a lottery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith cited the Thames regional health authority. There is no earthly reason why the health authorities—all surrounding London—should not be able to look to one or two centres of excellence; that, surely, would be better than dispersal of services among certain hospitals. After all, one in 12 women in this country are likely to develop breast cancer, but only 40 per cent. of patients will be able to see specialist oncologists. The average number of patients seen by oncologists in the United Kingdom is 560—the highest number in Europe. The recommended number is only 350. That means that oncologists are overworked; the resources must be spread, and I hope that the Government will act.
One of the problems is that surgeons often have little experience of breast cancer. It is difficult for hon. Members who are not medically qualified to hold forth about the way in which patients are treated by individual doctors, but I feel that there is an overwhelming case for demanding specialist treatment. A surgeon who is a "generalist" is unlikely to have the time or the inclination to become a specialist. Far too many women are having mastectomies which could possibly have been avoided if treatment, or even screening, had been provided earlier.
There are also serious problems with radiotherapy. They have been highlighted by Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—also known as RAGE—a group of women who have been given radiotherapy for breast


cancer. The organisation has heard from 1,400 women; some of the letters that it has received came from the families of women who died not from cancer but from the injuries caused by their treatment. In many instances, it appears that overdosing and serious side-effects were involved. I hope that the Minister will say that his Department is prepared to take an interventionist line, and set up a national action programme that will direct research appropriately and establish regional centres of excellence.
We have been considering the resources that should be made available to women suffering from breast cancer. As we are now in the age of the charter, let me suggest some services that should be available under such an arrangement. First, general practitioners should be able to refer patients promptly to a team specialising in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, including a consultant. The GP should not have to think, "Goodness, what do I do now? Where can I find a specialist?"
Secondly, the patient should be given a diagnosis within four weeks of being referred to a hospital. All too often, GPs in my community tell me that they spend hours on the telephone every day simply trying to refer patients to hospital. My main local hospital, the Whittington, can deal with no new cases—other than life-and-death emergencies in the local population—until April, because of inadequate funding. That in itself is a serious problem.
Patients also need a confirmed diagnosis before they consent to treatment, including surgery. There is still an information barrier between the patient and the medical professions. Every woman should be fully informed of all the implications of every kind of treatment that is available—or not available—before surgery. Patients should have access to specialist breast care nurses who are trained to provide information and psychological support: psychological support is vital to the person concerned, who is undergoing a very traumatic experience.
The national health service should enable patients to meet others who suffer from breast cancer. Too many people must deal with the horror of cancer in isolation. I have encountered cases of people who do not want to tell their families that they are suffering from such a disease: they are unable to share the experience with anyone. Although any promotion of such discussions between sufferers by the Department of Health would not be a medical action as such, I consider that the opportunity for sufferers to meet other patients and former patients is very important—as is the provision of information about support services for patients and their families, who can at least give them support and some understanding.
Breast cancer is a crucial issue on which this country has a dreadful record. We have had a short opportunity to raise that issue today; I hope that the Government will respond by devoting real resources and real action to it.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak, and congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on securing the debate. I also congratulate him and other members of the all-party breast cancer group—to which I belong—on the work that they have done. They have brought much into the open during the debate, and I endorse much of what has been said. As a result, this has been a very useful debate; perhaps we should discuss the subject more regularly.
It is difficult to imagine a disease that touches the lives of so many of our constituents. Every Member of Parliament has a direct interest in ensuring that the dreadful figures that have been given are improved. I want to enlarge on points that have already been raised—including, notably, the need for a national plan not just on screening but on research and treatment, along the lines of the model set out in the United States National Cancer Act of 1971.
It is interesting to note that the President himself has a cancer panel, such is the priority that the American Administration attach to the problem. It is, in fact, due to the still rather unfashionable President Nixon that the panel exists; President Clinton merely used legislation that was already on the statute book. We lack any legislation of that nature with which to tackle this huge disease. 'We probably spend less time discussing cancer than we spend discussing AIDS, which—in terms of the number of deaths that it causes—constitutes a tiny fraction of the problem created by breast cancer.
I want to concentrate in particular on the unfortunate group of women who belong to Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure. I became involved in the subject because one of my constituents suffered serious injury as a result of radiotherapy. We are fond of thinking that people who have been cured of breast cancer are fortunate, but a sizeable group of them have been afflicted by appalling and painful injuries of which they were given no warning when they were considering what treatment they should accept and what hope they had of a cure. Something must be done. The injuries occur at different rates, and at different treatment centres. That underlines what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said about treatment being a lottery: there is a lack of consistency between different centres and different parts of the country, and the chances of injury at some hospitals are far greater than at others—I shall not name any hospitals. No one seems to know why that is.
The women concerned are suffering from very disabling effects. Some, like my constituent, are in constant pain, often so bad that they seek amputation of a limb. The radiation damage to their bodies often requires such amputation, or causes death. No Member of Parliament who has listened to the stories of those women can underestimate the pain and suffering that they experience.
I am able, however, to congratulate the Government on setting up a proper inquiry into the matter. Following meetings with the chief medical officer, the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, RAGE and Professor Karol Sikora, the Under-Secretary of State, my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege, authorised an audit of brachialplexus neurologically related injuries, to be conducted by Dr. Thelma Bates and Dr. Richard Evans. It started on 1 September 1994 and its aim is simply to find out what has happened and why.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to respond to RAGE's representations. I congratulate the Select Committee on Health on inviting RAGE to give evidence to its breast cancer inquiry. Let us hope that the Select Committee will continue to return to the subject on a regular basis.
We are fortunate that we are a generation that talks about the disease, which is prepared to discuss it and to raise its profile. I hope that the Government will continue to respond positively to the representations that are made to them on this subject.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on securing a debate on this important subject, on which a tremendous consensus appears to exist. I congratulate the all-party breast cancer group on its work. As we have heard, breast cancer is a common and, far too often, fatal disease. The statistics have been rehearsed already, but it is worth confirming that we have the highest breast cancer mortality rate in the world—its incidence is five times greater here than in countries such as Japan. One woman in 11 will develop breast cancer. Sadly, between 25,000 and 29,000 new cases arise every year.
Unfortunately, the reason for the high incidence of breast cancer in the United Kingdom is not fully understood. Obviously, further research is needed into the causes. It would appear that the disease is associated with western developed countries. There are high incidence rates in the United States of America, in Canada and in Europe, and some social and environmental factors have been stated as possible causes, including high-fat diet, hormone treatment, oral contraception, alcohol and stress, to name but a few.
Sadly, as the House has been told, each year between 13,000 and 15,000 deaths occur as a result of breast cancer. That is a grave cause for concern. It is the sixth commonest cause of death in the UK, and the commonest cause of death for women aged between 35 and 54. Clearly, we must address ourselves to prevention, to early diagnosis and, as we have heard, to better treatment. We should also, however, look towards researching the causes of breast cancer. I was interested to hear the comments of hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). The position is so bad in this country that we must deal with it. We cannot rely on charitable funding for research.
Breast cancer was recognised by the Government and included in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. A target was set to reduce the breast cancer death rate in the population invited for screening by 25 per cent. by the year 2000. The rates have varied from 95.1 deaths per 100,000 of the population in 1990. The target is to reduce that figure to 71.3 deaths per 100,000. Problems still surround the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, despite the setting of that target; hence the Government's expert advisory group on cancer, which reported in May last year.
Various opinions exist on the value of a screening programme. The British Medical Journal view of "The Health of the Nation" doubted the efficacy of screening and described the White Paper's targets as optimistic. In 1985, there were 98.3 deaths per 100,000 of the population; in 1990 the figure had reduced to only 95.1 per cent. So there could be some difficulty in achieving the target.
The journal suggested that the Government should take other steps. With an eye to this Friday's debate in the House, it stated:
Above all else, it"—
that is, the Government—
should make it clear that it is willing to reduce smoking through legislative means. Only then are screening, diet, information, and counselling kept in proportion.
Suggestions have been made that the screening interval is too long, and that an age limit set at 50 is too high. I accept that it has been found that the screening programme is more effective for post-menopausal women—hence the setting of the age level at between 50 and 65. Studies have been conducted, however, into what are known as "interval" cancers, which occur within the three-year screening time. According to a study in the North Western regional health authority, an increased number of interval cancers occurred between screenings.
I acknowledge that, in a circular in January this year, the Government set out guidance on screening, and required screening units to take two X-rays to try to ensure a more efficient screening programme, but perhaps we should begin to consider whether those interval cancers are "new" cancers, or existing cancers that have been misdiagnosed.
Sadly, errors of diagnosis have been made. It seems that errors occur with all screening programmes. In May 1994, all 90 screening units were required to check their clerical systems because of errors. Some 30 per cent. of the cancers highlighted in the study of interval cancers undertaken in the North Western regional health authority were subject to misdiagnosis.
It is clear that the treatment of breast cancer has not been as good as it could be. Many of the problems have been acknowledged—inequalities of treatment, geographically and economically; the low number of cancer specialists; the internal market; the purchaser-provider split and how that impacts on the purchase of cancer care; and women treated by specialists who perhaps have inadequate training or experience in particular cancers, especially breast cancer. We have heard from hon. Members about delays in referrals.
The women who are diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer deserve sympathetic and expert treatment from specialists who are experienced in the disease. The inequalities were exposed by the Thames cancer registry recently. Health Service Journal stated in September 1994:
The Thames study highlighted 'variations and inequalities' in treatment and said the chances of a woman surviving the disease were 'likely to depend on where she lives and how well off she is'.
That is a disgraceful position, which must be dealt with, and which I understand the Government will deal with when they respond to the expert advisory group.
We have heard that the abolition of regional health authorities will bring about an uncertain future for many screening programmes and cancer registries. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that screening programmes will continue, and that the registries will be able to continue their work under the new regime. That information is crucial to research in this matter.
It is sad that, in this country, five-year survival rates can vary by almost 20 per cent., depending on how affluent the area is where a person resides. That was brought out by the regional health authority study. One


can only guess at the variations in affluence that might occur between various parts of the country, north and south. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) mentioned the problems that she had trying to find out what treatments were available in Yorkshire.
I have of necessity to be extremely brief, but I wish to refer quickly to the Macmillan cancer care fund, which last year issued a 10-point programme for breast cancer care. It will also announce an initiative next week which, I hope, will prove successful. As we have heard, the expert advisory group will set up primary care centres and designated cancer units and centres. I hope that the Government will respond as soon as possible to the consultation, which has now concluded. I understand that their response is due early this year.
I hope that, with the Department of Health's initiative and with the various charities involved in research, we can look forward to a comprehensive system for the treatment of breast cancer, something that the country greatly needs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) on his eloquent appeal for the highest quality of care and service for women with breast cancer and thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I share the hon. Gentleman's regret that there is no Scottish Minister here, but I am glad to hear that he will have the opportunity to question the relevant Minister in detail. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office Home and Health Department—like the Department of Health—is committed to reducing deaths from breast cancer as part of the aim to reduce cancer mortality overall.
The hon. Gentleman has very ably led the parliamentary all-party group on breast cancer, which has done so much to make its presence felt in lobbying on behalf of the thousands of women who contract this terrible condition. I therefore appreciate having this opportunity to set out briefly the Government's commitment to providing the highest quality of prevention and treatment.
We are, I hasten to say, neither complacent about nor ignorant of the very real threat that the disease poses to public health and to individual women. No Government could underestimate the seriousness of a condition that affects so many and results in so much suffering and so many deaths each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned the wider problem of the damage unwittingly done through the use of excessive radiation in treatment. I assure him that there are initiatives to minimise the risk of any further slip in quality assurance and plans are in hand to ensure that all radiation units are subject to the strictest guidelines so that the unnecessary and disastrous damage to which he referred cannot occur in the future.
It has been pointed out that we have made breast cancer a central element in "The Health of the Nation". Our goal is to cut the number of deaths among women invited for screening by 25 per cent. by the end of the decade. However, it is a tragic fact that breast cancer is still on the increase in this country and abroad. We do not know precisely why that is so, but several social, environmental and genetic factors are at play. Apart from age, factors

that appear to increase the risk of breast cancer include late childbearing, the early onset of the menopause, obesity and ionising radiation. They may also include diet, the prolonged use of hormone replacement therapy and a number of other elements into which further research is needed. Given that background, let me summarise what the Government are doing.
It goes without saying that there is a wide network of cancer treatment facilities around the country although, of course, I can necessarily speak in detail only of those in England. However, 7 per cent. of all national health service expenditure goes on the treatment of cancer. Many new units and facilities are being created, and I mention in particular the soon-to-be-opened breast care clinic at Bromley hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), which is typical of the new facilities coming on stream.
We have established a national population-based breast screening programme for all women aged between 50 and 64 in support of which new guidelines have been issued to ensure that screening is as effective as possible. We have provided significant funding for research which is supported by, but in no way dependent on, considerable help from major cancer charities. We have also funded the promotion of health material to increase awareness and to encourage women to come forward for screening and to report symptoms.
In the short time remaining, I shall take up the references to the steps taken in the United States. Mention has been made of the apparent switch in spending from defence to health in America. There is no doubt that the defence budget, like many budgets, is stable or dropping while the health budget in this country continues to increase considerably. There has been a 4.4 per cent. increase to all the regions this year, which is well ahead of inflation. I have no doubt that there will continue to be an increase in the share of public spending going on health. A substantial proportion of that will be spent on new cancer facilities because, as has been mentioned, there is too much inequality in provision around the country for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
It is well known that too many cancer sufferers, especially women with breast cancer, are not diagnosed swiftly enough. They are not seen sufficiently quickly by people with the appropriate level of expertise, which means that treatment can be delayed. Whatever the clinical effect of waiting for diagnosis and then waiting for treatment may be—it can be serious—the emotional effect is clearly considerable and we need to take action.
Hon. Members have mentioned the chief medical officer's expert advisory group's report. It is a very important document that will change the way in which we examine cancer and its treatment. The fundamental idea is that we must be clear about the different levels of expertise needed in diagnosing cancer. General practitioners need to be absolutely certain how and where to refer patients. If patients are or might be suffering from rare cancers, it may not be appropriate to make a final diagnosis or offer treatment in district hospitals, so there need to be three levels of involvement: the GP, the district hospital and a cancer centre—at least one in each region but perhaps more than one in some—where the most difficult and rare cancers can be treated. There is no point in sending cancer patients to see consultants or doctors who seldom see rare cancers. The expert advisory group's report will ensure the proper referral of cancer patients


and that the proper resources are invested to ensure that the appropriate specialty is available for every cancer patient.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leith on his eloquent speech on what I regard as the most serious problem that faces the health service.

Army Base Repair Organisation, Ashford

Sir Keith Speed: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an important subject which affects the future of more than 200 families in my constituency and an important workshop which has served the British Army well for a number of years. Last year, the director of the Army Base Repair Organisation referred to it as the "jewel in the crown". ABRO took over the workshops of various support units which serve the Army and its vehicles, renovating various vehicles coming from Europe or wherever.
The Ashford workshops, in common with many other ABRO workshops, have been examined as part of a Ministry of Defence and ABRO study of workshop overcapacity in Britain. Given the cuts in the Army, Navy and Air Force, we know that support services must also be cut back. Indeed, announcements were made today for cuts in some Navy store support services in the west country.
An additional complication has arisen in this case, as one of the main workshop sheds is directly in the line of the channel tunnel rail route announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in April last year.
The study of overcapacity has been going on for a considerable time. Last October, when I was in Moscow on parliamentary business, my right hon. Friend the Minister took considerable steps to explain to me by telephone, that it was proposed, as part of the study on overcapacity, that the Ashford workshops should be closed. He agreed over the telephone that the rail link through the site was not a key factor in the decision to close the workshops. He further agreed to meet a delegation from the work force in my constituency.
Accordingly, on 12 December I met my right hon. Friend with such a delegation. My right hon. Friend was extremely courteous and heard what we had to say. One of our main complaints was the lack of market testing of the workshops in Ashford so that it was difficult to see precisely how good or bad they were, although I and the work force believe that they are very good and have served the Army well. A few days later, my right hon. Friend went to Ashford and saw the workshops for himself. As a result, he wrote me a letter just before Christmas saying that he had asked for a further investigation into the various proposals that had been made, not least the investment options. He said that there would be an extended period for consultation and that he would be in touch with me again in due course. So there was a short temporary reprieve.
At the end of December, however, both the work force and I were concerned and felt some consternation when Brigadier Drew, chief executive of ABRO, replied to a number of my constituents who had written to him. In a letter dated 20 December 1994 he said:
The decision to recommend the closure of ABRO Ashford results from a number of factors. A rationalisation study commissioned by the organisation identified significant overcapacity within our workshops. For those workshops, such as Ashford, providing a service to Army units within their geographical area, the study team recommended that the overcapacity should be addressed via the market testing process (that is in the preparation of a bid in competition with industry to provide the service to the


Army). The team was also asked to consider the impact of external factors on rationalisation and the intended use of the Ashford site for the high speed rail link was taken into account. In order for the closure of the Ashford workshop to be effected in time to meet Union Rail requirements, the existing workshop site must be excluded from the market testing options.
That letter went down like a lead balloon with all concerned, as it seemed totally to foreclose any conclusions that my right hon. Friend the Minister might make. It appeared to say that the considerations for Union Rail, which is currently responsible for the channel tunnel rail link, were more important than considerations for my constituents, ABRO or the British Army.
Consequently, I wrote to my right hon. Friend what I hope was a courteous though terse letter expressing my concern about those matters. That resulted in a meeting between us and others of the ABRO team at headquarters last week. Indeed, it has resulted in today's debate. So far, no final decision has been taken.
Over the past month or so, the workshop has provided headquarters with information, as a result of which it has been proposed that there should be either 70,000 man hours work district load, plus an additional 35,000 hours special project work from the workshop or, alternatively, just a 70,000 man hours district load, which would reduce by 2,000 or 3,000 hours with the closure of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwich in a few months' time. Currently, the workshop does some 200,000 man hours and the work force believes that market testing would show that it could more than meet that job. For example, as the Minister and I have seen, the workshops do a good job on Land Rovers for the Army. I have been told privately that they are probably the best Land. Rover service and refurbishment centre in the world, not just the United Kingdom. Be that as it may, if the workshops were able to market-test against Rover, we could find out whether they were as good as they and I think they are. The 200,000 hours may not be pie in the sky.
Proper consultation has not been carried out between the management teams in Ashford and ABRO headquarters. If everyone's heart was in the right place, efficiencies could have been found just by sitting, round the table and discussing the matter. It is a pity that some of the information technology that Ashford requires to make itself more efficient has been withdrawn for other parts of the system in recent months.
If the national market tests are as important as the brigadier said, why was the decision taken even before the workshops were given a chance to market-test? Why was the investigation appraisal not carried out as part of the market study? That would have made a lot of sense. My constituents sent in information on how they could cope with the various loads and make further efficiencies.
ABRO considered that on some of those matters, such as staff costs, contracted-out services, costs of utilities, property management, equipment costs, vehicle maintenance and petrol-oil lubricants, my constituents had been over-optimistic. It therefore scaled them down in the investment appraisal to the tune of some £100,000 a year, which is significant in view of the possible savings that may be made. I do not know whether such scaling down is right, but it would have been helpful if the management team in Ashford could have discussed the matter with the management team at ABRO headquarters. We would then all have had a clearer idea of what was going on.
There is no question that the existing "A" workshop will have to be demolished. That leads on to the question of replacement. My right hon. Friend has confirmed in writing and verbally—there is no dispute about it—that the cost of replacement of the workshops will be borne by Union Rail or the company who build the high-speed rail link in precisely the same way as they will provide compensation or cost of replacement to various other companies within my constituency that will be similarly affected.
As a result of investigations, two excellent possible replacement sites are available at Sevington. They have been produced by Eurotunnel developments and would offer brand new, energy and utility efficient sites, properly laid out with excellent access. They are being built at the moment and will be ready soon. The total cost, which will be borne, once again, by Union Rail and not by the Ministry of Defence, would be about £5 million.
Another alternative site, which is even nearer home—just across the road from the current workshops—is the former East Kent Bus depot. With a little refurbishment and modernisation, that would provide an energy efficient replacement workshop at a total cost of about £1.5 million.
Alternative sites for the workshops are therefore readily available at costs within the terms of the compensation that Union Rail would be prepared to pay. Those sites would be available for the market testing that my constituents are keen should be conducted. They would provide an excellent relocation site for the workshops if, as I hope, they are reprieved by my right hon. Friend.
The crunch behind the country-wide exercise is what money will be saved. There is no point in embarking upon such an exercise, the result of which may mean that many people will lose their jobs and commerce in the area will be badly affected, if the savings achieved are minimal or even non-existent.
Other workshops have been closed at Donnington and Old Dalby and the savings achieved, if not huge, have not been insignificant. In cash terms, the savings over the long-term costing period, which I understand is 10 years, range from £18 million to £35 million. In net present value terms over the LTC, long-term costing, the savings range from £14 million to £27 million. Those are considerable sums of money and were no doubt taken into account when considering the future of the organisations at Donnington and Old Dalby.
According to ABRO's own figures from headquarters, given to me by my right hon. Friend, the likely savings to be achieved at Ashford work out at a different level. If one takes the first option of the 70,000 man hour load plus the 35,000 hours special project work, one finds that the cash saving over the 10-year period is about £300,000 a year and the NPV, net present value, saving is about £250,000. Those sums are arrived at either by comparing the cost of transferring all the current work to a new-build workshop provided by Union Rail or by closing the ABRO workshop and transferring the work to other ABRO facilities, for example, to Aldershot and to contract repair.
If one takes the largest option, covering the 35,000 hour special project work and the 70,000 man hour load, one is talking about savings of between £200,000 and £300,000 whether that is worked out in cash or NPV terms. If one considers the 70,000 man hours option and none of the


special work, the figure saved is even lower at about £210,000 in NPV or about £260,000 in cash a year over the 10-year period.
That is not the end of the story, because on top of that one must add the redundancy and replacement costs of all those affected—some 200 people gross or perhaps 150 net given the mobility of some of the work force and the redeployment of others. According to my sums we must be talking in terms of £3 million for the first cash redundancy payments alone. That is more or less equivalent to the projected entire savings over the 10-year period. That £3 million, however, is up front and is not spread over 10 years. I am aware that that cost does not fall upon the budget of the MOD, but I am a Member of Parliament and a taxpayer and my right hon. Friend is a member of the Government, so we must be interested in the taxpayer and public expenditure as a whole.
We must also accept that some people will not be able to rush out and get a similar job, so we must remember the on-going costs of unemployment, income support, the loss of income tax paid and national insurance and other contributions. We soon find that huge sums are run up. Are we really to deny the Army of a facility that has worked extremely well and efficiently—the nearest facility to continental Europe and to the channel tunnel—in exchange for an overburden on and increased cost to the taxpayer?
I speak as a former Defence Minister and, in terms of MOD figures, when we talk of savings of between £200,000 and £300,000, that is the equivalent to washers. Such sums are within the calculating errors that may occur. If my right hon. Friend wants to save that sort of money I can point him in various directions where I am sure he knows that more than that money could be saved.
The proposed closures are not worth the candle at the end of the day. Alternative premises could be made available at no cost to the MOD, which would be more efficient than the current premises. If that happened we would retain a workshop for the Army that does extremely well and which could then be market-tested against anyone else. My constituents are more than confident that they would emerge triumphant from that test. In any event, the financial argument in favour of closure does not stand up.
I know that my right hon. Friend goes carefully into such matters. I hope that, with all those facts in mind, he will be able to tell me and my constituents, if not necessarily today, certainly within a few days, that he has examined the figures and looked carefully again at the possible alternative sites that I have mentioned. I hope that he will say that it will be possible for the jewel in the crown to remain the jewel in the crown of ABRO.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) not only on his robust defence of his constituents, in the best interests of the town of Ashford, but on succeeding in raising the matter on the Floor of the House. A formal Adjournment debate can serve many purposes and at least one of them is to ensure that the facts are properly available to everyone.
I shall certainly study the record of what has been said, although my hon. Friend will not expect me to answer all his questions today. I do not intend to take a decision today or next week, because the issue needs to be subject to proper analysis. The Ministry of Defence is considering several dozen proposals for rationalisation, all of which affect jobs. Approximately, in the decade 1985 to 1995 the defence budget has fallen by 25 per cent. in real terms, with a much sharper fall in recent years for the support services. We are wrestling with the need to reduce support costs by up to £750 million per annum by 1996–97, which presents difficult choices.
One thing is clear: every decision must be taken in a proper, rational fashion which in turn can be justified in a robust fashion to the House. We are certainly not in that position yet regarding Ashford. It might help if I sketch in some of the background and answer some of the points that have been raised.
We are talking about the district workshops and not the base repair workshops, such as those at Bovingdon, which were market-tested. The in-house team won that contract for the repair of tanks. On 31 January, I announced the decision to withdraw work, sadly, from Old Dalby and to concentrate it, for planning purposes, on Donnington. In due course that site will be subject to exposure to competing for quality, which may include market testing. I hope that the private sector and other parts of the MOD will take the opportunity to present proposals for tackling some of the work packages at Old Dalby rather than letting them go to Donnington. That must be a more efficient option than that work going to Donnington.

Dr. John Reid: On Old Dalby, is the Minister absolutely convinced that the figures on which he is working are accurate? According to the figures that I have seen—I accept that they have been produced by people who have a direct interest in and would suffer the consequences of any changes at Old Dalby—the rationalisation plans, far from achieving any significant savings, may result in insignificant savings, have a deleterious effect on Old Dalby and cost the MOD in the long run. Can the Minister say anything about those figures?

Mr. Freeman: I should be glad to go through the figures for Old Darlby, either in writing or in a briefing to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the margin of savings there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, is of a different order of magnitude from the margin of savings for Ashford. I am cautious about Ashford at this stage for the reason that my hon. Friend outlined—the fact that some of the figures bear thorough analysis, and I do not think that we have reached that position. There was an extensive survey for Old Dalby. Even making assumptions—perhaps taking into account more pessimistic assumptions about transport costs of moving equipment—I am satisfied that the decision on Old Dalby was robust and sensible. However, if the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) wishes me to pursue that another time, I shall be glad to do so.
Why have we proceeded to consider Ashford prior to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford describes it, a market test for the district workshops? We need to rationalise now before the market test for all the district workshops, which will be done nationally. We are market-testing the service of the district workshops—not


the sites—and therefore we are testing the alternatives for providing immediate support to the Army in terms of repairing vehicles.
Why do we seek some rationalisation now? The Army needs some savings in its votes, and it is easier to market-test if one is able to offer the private sector a clear and sensible range of services and, indeed, current workshop sites. It is more difficult to market-test if there is any serious doubt about where the locations will or will not be.
We have overcapacity of about 40 per cent. in our district workshops. That is a function not only of the run-down in the size of the armed forces but of the fact that rationalisation has not occurred in the past. Prior closures have included York, Bridgend and Liverpool, all in 1993. Therefore I believe that it was sensible for ABRO to consider Ashford now, to discover whether there was a case for closure of that workshop.
Why select Ashford when there are other workshops? There are three reasons, all of which are sensible. First, Ashford is not a garrison town and, compared with Catterick, Colchester, Aldershot and Warminster—other district workshop locations—there are relatively few Army units in the area. The location of the channel tunnel is not so relevant as might at first have been thought, because heavy equipment will enter the military port of Marchwood and then be sent for onward transmission to the appropriate district or base workshop. The existence of the tunnel and the rail link, projected and present, is not so relevant to the issue as some people might initially have thought.
The second reason for selecting Ashford is that the site is obviously affected by the route of the channel tunnel rail link. Indeed, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford for not drawing attention to the obvious fact, which I want to put on the record, that I was the Minister who announced the route through Ashford. However, I assure him that I now discharge a different function and approach my job on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. I am not trying to justify the implications of that original decision.
The routing of the channel rail link is not a compelling reason for closure in itself. It is relevant only for the reason cited in Brigadier Drew's letter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford quoted: the existence of the site right in the middle of the proposed channel tunnel rail link means that one cannot market-test that specific workshop on that specific site. He did not mean to say—I am happy to correct the position—that that would preclude considering the reprovision of the workshop, either within the specific army property where it is located in Ashford, which contains several other units, or elsewhere in Ashford.
The third reason for selecting Ashford was the declining workload. It is an efficient operation and we pay tribute to the work force. However, efficient labour productivity should not be confused with an inefficient work site, which may be a function of the excessive size of the premises and the overheads that go with guarding, maintaining, heating and lighting a very large workshop. The men are obviously efficient; the site may not be, even without the impact of the rail link, and even without the impact of the need to rationalise the district workshops.
Those were the reasons for selecting Ashford. Incidentally, I should put on record that it is proposed to enter into a direct exchange scheme for Land Rover

engines. That has not happened, but I am advised that that is proposed, and that it should provide greater efficiency. I say, "should"; it needs to be tested, and argued rationally in ABRO, before ABRO decides to proceed, but it intends to proceed with that scheme to improve the efficiency of engine repair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was right; consultation papers went out on 27 October 1994, a delegation visited me on December 12 and I visited the workshops on December 15. I then asked for a fresh appraisal to be done because it had not been assumed that the workshops—indeed, smaller workshops—would be reprovided by Union Railways, either in the premises owned by the Army or elsewhere in Ashford, and I am happy to confirm that the new investment appraisal assumes that. There is, at worst, a nil effect on the appraisal because of the assumed reprovision. As we have assumed reprovision at someone else's expense, the running costs of the new workshop will fall. It will be smaller and will be more efficiently heated and lit. I understand that it will be cheaper to run by about £6 million, expressed in net present value terms, over 10 years. That saving is not taken into account in the investment appraisal.
No decision has been taken, but I will repeat the facts for the record. The appraisal assumes 70,000 man hours per annum of what is called district load—regular repair work to vehicles, and so on. In addition, it assumes 35,000 hours of special project work. That is work which can be directed by the ABRO organisation from anywhere in the United Kingdom specifically to Ashford—for example, the demountable rack offloading and pickup system vehicles used in Bosnia to move ammunition and other supplies.
The net present value cost, a standard way of conducting an appraisal, discounts the stream of cash costs of running the operation into present-day pounds. If one stays in Ashford, in a new building, the net present value cost to us will be £13.9 million. If one closes Ashford and moves 50 per cent. of the work to Aldershot—at marginal cost, simply because Aldershot has the capacity to do the extra work—and 50 per cent. of the 70,000 man hours of district load are contracted out into the local community, to local engineering and shops and garages, at local rates, the net present value cost will be £11.4 million. That is a saving of £2.5 million in net present value terms.
However, there are redundancy payments. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was right to mention those. We have assumed that 192 staff would be affected. Twenty-one mobile grades would be redeployed, leaving 171 staff who might be eligible for redundancy payments.
Some redundancy will happen anyway as, irrespective of whether one moves work from Ashford, one needs to slim down the activity. I have assumed that that would cost about £500,000. If one moves the special project work elsewhere, the total redundancy bill could be about £1 million in any case; that would affect about 60 jobs. If one closes the whole of Ashford, the full bill would be about £2.7 million for those 171 people. That is a very


significant sum, and it is up front, as my hon. Friend fairly said. So the saving of £2.5 million that I referred to earlier—

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must finish and I have only two minutes. The saving of £2.5 million in net present value terms is substantially reduced, perhaps by as much as £1.7 million, which is the additional incremental redundancy payments that would be involved in closure in addition to that which might happen anyway. One is left with a margin of perhaps £750,000, as the net present value—that is a lump sum, not expressed on an annual basis—of the closure. Obviously, it is finely balanced, which is why no decision has been reached at present.
I conclude by putting on the record two factors that would support closure. I would welcome further comments, not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, but from representatives of the work force at Ashford. If we look over 20 years, for example, the savings will grow even larger because of running cost savings, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Even if we discount that stream of saving, the total value of savings will grow over 20 or 30 years.
Some local employment will be created by withdrawing from Ashford, although is difficult to estimate how much. However, I estimate that 35,000 man hours of work will be created through contracting out, as well as a couple of dozen jobs which either will not be lost or will be created in the engineering works in Ashford.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford not only for his courtesy but for his thoroughness in raising the issue. I assure him that the Minister of Defence will reflect on what has been said today and it will continue its appraisal of the proposal to close Ashford and concentrate work within the district workshops in order to reach a sensible conclusion.

Religious Education

Mr. Michael Alison: In 1988, Parliament strengthened the law on a daily act of worship in maintained schools by an overwhelming majority of 264 on a free vote. It followed widespread concern that worship was becoming a secular ceremony in too many schools. Broadly Christian worship was made the norm in the Education Reform Act 1988, but non-Christian faith communities were given extensive rights to worship according to their own faith. In the other place, the reforms were welcomed by the then Chief Rabbi Lord Jacobovits. At the time of the debates, the present Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, said that
if Christianity suffers, so, in a curious way, does every other faith as well … Might not teaching children their own traditions"—
that is, Christianity—
do more for tolerance, and for faith than teaching them everyone else's?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 420.]
Why is education in worship so important? The reason is that education is not really complete without consideration of the spiritual and moral dimension. That dimension is now statutorily enshrined as an essential feature of school life.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given his strong support to the present law. He put the case very well in his letter to me of 13 December last in response to an approach from a Selby constituent. He said:
Schools are required by law to provide a daily act of collective worship for all pupils. This should provide the opportunity for them to worship God and explore their own beliefs. It will also contribute to the development of community spirit, promote a common ethos and shared values, and reinforce positive attitudes. Collective worship in non-denominational schools is required to be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian nature … Schools should make every effort to secure the support of parents and the wider community for the values which they espouse.
A circular from the Department for Education matches the Prime Minister's admirable reflections and it rightly emphasises that Jesus Christ is to be given a special status in Christian worship.
We should remember that experience of worship can provide a life-long spiritual resource. My friend Baroness Cox recently said, rather pertinently:
Anyone who has contact with the people who are in extremis, as I have as a nurse, knows how often they find comfort in the scriptures and in the prayers and hymns learnt in childhood. To deny our young people this experience and this knowledge is an ultimate betrayal.
Christianity, like leaven in the lump in Christ's famous parable, has worked its way deeply into the British character and attitude to life. The publication British Social Attitudes—probably one of the most academically respected surveys of public opinion—found in its 1994–95 report that 87.6 per cent. of our population claim to have been brought up in the Christian faith, with more than 57 per cent. still seeing themselves as belonging to a specific Christian denomination. Just under 20 per cent. of the population say that they go to church at least once a month, but 27 per cent. of the population say that they pray every week. Only 3.7 per cent. claim to have been brought up in a non-Christian faith.
That last statistic should help us to keep a sense of proportion about schools. It is commonly accepted that fewer than 300 schools, out of a total of 25,000, have significant numbers of pupils from a non-Christian background of faith.
British Social Attitudes found that the overwhelming majority of the population—some 70 per cent.—want schools to offer a daily act of collective worship, with fewer than 10 per cent. strongly opposed. Against that background, it is certain that neither Parliament nor the nation's parents are seeking to abandon daily Christian worship in schools. However, the same cannot be said of some union leaders and teacher trainers.
The secular eduction system in France and the United States has recently been praised by a number of union leaders, including Nigel de Gruchy of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. He has called for the scrapping of the present legislative arrangements. The leadership of the National Association of Head Teachers has also made clear its opposition to the 1988 reforms.
Last May, that union carried out a survey of all of its members. On 28 May, The Times reported that the survey showed that 87 per cent. of secondary and 65 per cent. of primary heads believed that they could not meet the law's requirements. I am convinced that that was a bogus survey and it is worth putting some facts about it on the record.
Of the 32,412 survey forms sent out by the NAHT, only 1,747 were returned from members in county schools—that represented fewer than 6 per cent. of all United Kingdom schools. That is a tiny, wholly unrepresentative sample. In its desire to yield a favourable outcome to the secularist cause, the NAHT appears to have sent questionnaires as far afield as Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Cyprus. Head teachers in those far-flung parts of the globe and in Scotland and Northern Ireland were asked their views about legislation that affects only England and Wales.
There are factual errors throughout the survey. For example, one question attempts to gauge whether the Education Act 1993 has had an impact on the number of teachers who are unwilling to lead worship, but that Act made no changes to the law on school worship. Professor Kevin Glazebrook of Newcastle university has said that
it is not possible to draw any conclusions
from the NAHT survey. I note that the Christian Institute, which has helped me in the preparation of my speech, will soon publish a shocking report citing serious arithmetical and other errors in the NAHT survey.
Far from 65 per cent. of all primary schools breaking the law on worship, as the NAHT would have us believe, the chief inspector of schools commented in his latest report to Parliament that "virtually all" the nation's 20,000 primary schools comply with the law. In a whole year of inspections, Ofsted could not find a single English primary school which broke the law.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Alison: I am afraid that I have very little speaking time left so I must ask my hon. Friend to forgive me. I will give way to her later if there is any time left.
The situation with the 5,000 schools in the secondary sector is very different. Ofsted has reported that there is basic compliance with the law in 60 per cent. of secondary schools but that even those schools are not perfect.
On that point, I wish to raise one particular issue with my hon. Friend the Minister. Inspection reports tend bluntly to state whether a school complies with the law. That information is far too limited. Some schools may be almost complying, others might be nowhere near it. One school might be holding assembly on four days a week, another on only one day.
Some schools are being criticised by inspectors for holding Christian assemblies. One school was told that its assemblies should be more multicultural. In another large urban secondary school, staff are determined to meet the law's requirements. Assemblies are held in the assembly hall for three days a week and in form classes for two days a week, yet the school was told that it had failed to comply with the law on a technicality. That inner-city school should be commended rather slated on a minor technicality.
Let us be clear about the issue. Do we want a secular education system? We should take careful note of what happened in the United States. The Supreme Court banned school prayers and religious teaching in 1963. Since then, teachers have been dismissed for allowing prayer in school and parents have had to resort to legal action so that bible clubs or Christian Union groups can meet on school premises.
There have been 25 bleak years of secular dominance, but in the past few years things have been changing. One recent Gallup poll found that the Supreme Court ruling banning prayer is being flagrantly broken in 75 per cent. of high school graduation ceremonies. Three states have passed laws guaranteeing the right to have religious teaching and worship in schools. In the recent congressional elections, the Republicans stood firmly on the school prayer ticket and everybody knows with what results. Even President Clinton has now declared his support.
The Christian Action Research and Education organisation, representing 100,000 church members, recently concluded that in the matter of school worship:
We judge that the alternative to the present position, with all its imperfections and ambiguities, would lead inevitably to a thoroughly secularised system.".
If we should ignore the secular voices, we should also ignore those teacher trainers who call for cultural anarchy. In his recent lecture at the Royal Society of Arts on 12 December 1994, Professor John Hull of Birmingham university called for the complete repeal of section 7 of the Education Reform Act and for the term "collective worship" to be abolished in favour of "collective spirituality". That new term is reminiscent of 1960s new-age hippy culture and has distinctly left-wing overtones. The suggestion that all religions are to be harmonised into "collective spirituality" is nothing less than a call for the restoration of the full-blown, multi-faith mish-mash that was so vigorously criticised when the 1988 Act was put on the statute book.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist the call for collectivisation, as he so ably resists all other calls of such character. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for making it clear that the Government stand firmly behind the present arrangements for school worship.
I am also grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his public comments in support of daily Christian worship and to my distinguished constituent the Archbishop of York for the admirable letter to The Times on 9 January outlining some clear, realistic and perfectly attainable aims for school worship in non-church schools. Other bishops and officials in the Church of England should take heart from the lead given by the two archbishops and march confidently behind them.
In respect of teaching or leadership resources, my friend, Mr. Clive Calver, general secretary of the Evangelical Alliance, in a letter published in The Times on the same day as Archbishop John Hapgood's, referred to the resources lying potentially available from 5,000 evangelical churches and 700 member societies that are affiliated to the Evangelical Alliance.
Secondary schools need to be encouraged to establish closer links with local churches. In far too many cases, schools are refusing offers of help from the community.
Secondary schools would do well to learn from our primary schools, which have a superb track record in keeping the law on school worship and in securing the support of the local community. Undoubtedly, there should be more research on the issue. How is it that some secondary schools keep the law while others do not? It cannot be just a matter of accommodation, as some allege.
Dr. Carey recently said:
There is a danger in giving the impression that secularism is all dominant in our society. Most people still have some links to the Church, however tenuous those may be.
The Archbishop pointed out that one quarter of the population went to church last Christmas. He went on to say that the
establishment does not equate with privilege but with responsibility.
Churches need to be mobilised to offer support to schools. A major effort is needed here, particularly by the Church of England. Strenuous efforts should be made to make the law work in secondary schools as it already does in primary schools. Let us see the Church once again, in the words of the Anglican prayer book, as the Church militant rather than the Church hesitant. I have 30 seconds to give way to my hon. Friend.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish simply to confirm that the standard of religious education in my local primary schools is excellent. It is also very good in my local secondary schools. Not long ago, I visited a school in my constituency where the headmistress gave the best exposition of the trinity I have ever heard from anyone, even from a church minister. Fortunately, we are not lacking in either of those sectors.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the evident scope and capacity for building on what is already good and solid ground.

The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and very much welcome his choice of subject. It is a matter in which the House knows he has sustained a great interest over a long period. We know

that he plays a very distinguished part in Church matters and the important relationship between the Church and the House.
I immediately welcome my right hon. Friend's support for collective worship in schools. As he reminded the House, the Education Reform Act 1988 requires the curriculum to address the
spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development
of pupils and, as such, in the Government's view collective worship has a vital role to play.
Her Majesty's chief inspector's report for 1993–94 confirms that collective worship and religious education make a powerful contribution to a pupil's spiritual development and the sharing of moral values. Surely all that must be central to a school's efforts to establish its own distinctive ethos that will underpin all its activities and, most important, will be seen in the relationships and expectations within the school community.
The wording of the 1988 Act and the words of HMCI reflect closely the basis and thrust of my right hon. Friend's argument in this short debate. I should also confirm that the Government have no plans to change the legal requirements for collective worship, which give schools considerable flexibility in their arrangements for worship, not least because I agree with my right hon. Friend in his estimation of parental expectations in that regard. It would be a foolish person indeed who, given the strength of evidence that my right hon. Friend has brought before the House today, would seek to make some case for a radical change in the legal requirements and arrangements that are in place. In my view, we can continue to build on them.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the legislation rightly has Christianity at its heart, but it recognises that worship in schools will necessarily be different from worship in a community with beliefs in common. It does that by referring to collective rather than corporate worship.
The overall aim of the legislation is to offer pupils from a variety of backgrounds the opportunity to worship together wherever possible. It then gives flexibility—rightly, in my view—in the organisation of worship. Acts of worship need not be first thing in the morning but can be organised at any time during the day. Nor is there a requirement that the school should worship as a single group. It is open to a school to provide worship in separate age or class groups. The content of the worship in county schools and the equivalent grant-maintained schools can reflect faiths other than Christianity as long as the majority of the acts of worship over a term are wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. That gives the right balance and sufficient flexibility to those in different communities.
My right hon. Friend mentioned 300 schools of an overwhelmingly non-Christian nature. I will not argue with that figure, but flexibility in the arrangements is necessary to give cognisance of such schools and allow them to arrange their collective worship in the most appropriate way, bearing in mind the fundamental requirements of the legislation.
The detailed requirements for collective worship are spelt out in the Department's circular 1/94, which was—logically—published in January 1994. It does not contain proposals for change, as some have suggested, but offers guidance on the existing requirements of the Education


Reform Act and the Education Act 1993 for religious education and collective worship. It contains no new requirements beyond those of the Acts. The basic requirement for daily collective worship flows from the Education Act 1944, as does so much of our education system.
I am gratified that my right hon. Friend chose to quote from the evidence in Her Majesty's chief inspector's report. That showed that the picture on compliance with legal requirements is not as bleak as is sometimes suggested. The evidence is worth repeating. As my right hon. Friend said, nearly all primary schools were found to provide a daily assembly and about 80 per cent. were judged to be complying with the detail of the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) confirmed that in her constituency—to no one's surprise—her excellent schools are doing even better. Her view is that her primary schools and secondary schools are complying with the requirements. Regrettably, that is not necessarily so everywhere, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby said. The chief inspector's report stated that the majority of secondary schools did not provide daily collective worship for all pupils, but it said that worship, where it took place, was frequently of good quality and made a good contribution to pupils' spiritual and moral development.
It is right that Ofsted should monitor the provision of collective worship at school level. The new inspection regime ensures that arrangements in every school are inspected. Ofsted then comments on whether the statutory requirements are being met. That information is made available to parents and the public, as is the action plan, which schools are required to publish, showing how they intend to remedy any shortcomings. The schools are primarily answerable to parents on that matter and many parents, rightly and understandably, attach considerable importance to that sphere of school life.
My right hon. Friend has quoted some highly relevant statistics from the British social attitude survey to bear that out. A poll conducted by The Independent in 1993 found that about 70 per cent. of parents wanted their children to say prayers at school. As in so many other sectors of education today, if parents are not satisfied with the arrangements made by the school their children attend, they have access to the local curriculum complaints machinery established by the 1988 Act or they can take up the matter through the school governors. Parents with pupils at county schools can take up the issue with county councillors. If parents cannot satisfy themselves in those ways, the matter can ultimately be referred to the Secretary of State. However, it should be possible to resolve problems well before that. I urge all parents who are not satisfied with that important part of the provision in their child's school to take up the matter vigorously with the head teacher, parent-governors or other governors to ensure that the opinions quoted by my right hon. Friend and borne out by The Independent survey are properly reflected in the arrangements made by primary and secondary schools.
I note my right hon. Friend's remarks about the need for Ofsted reports to go beyond a simple statement of whether a school is complying with the law. Ofsted is aware of the importance of commenting, too, on the positive contribution that a school's collective worship provision makes to pupils' spiritual and moral

development, even if it is not meeting the letter of the law. Her Majesty's chief inspector's latest annual report does just that.
Many schools are doing valuable work in that sector and we should recognise and acknowledge their achievements. Ofsted's draft revised framework for inspection, published yesterday for consultation, proposes that, where inspectors find that a school is not meeting the law on collective worship, the report should give the head teacher's stated reasons for failing to do so.
I support what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of establishing links with churches and other places of worship in the local community—an important element of the argument. Although teachers, including head teachers, have the right to elect not to participate in collective worship for reasons of conscience, it remains the responsibility of the head to ensure that the statutory requirements are met. It is open to head teachers to invite members of the community, including religious leaders, to help to conduct collective worship, if they are able and willing to do so. Many schools have built up worthwhile relationships of that sort—with local clergy regularly making stimulating contributions to the schools' programme of collective worship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster said that that was the case in her constituency. If it can be demonstrated that it is possible in Lancaster, one is forced to ask why it cannot be done more readily and systematically in other parts of the country. We must urge not only the schools but local churches to see what can be done—in co-operation with each other—to try to ensure that, where heads and teachers have a genuine difficulty in meeting the requirements of the law, they can call on the support of local religious communities and leaders to help schools to comply with the law.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Minister has made a point that is worth emphasising. It should not be just up to the school and those responsible for religious education and worship to take the initiative and contact churches. Churches must take the initiative and contact schools to offer them help and show interest in what they are doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have just passed education Sunday, February might be a good time for each church and parish to contact all their schools—secular as well as denominational—to ask what more they can do to help them in their important work?

Mr. Forth: That was a typically positive and helpful suggestion from my hon. Friend. There must be more scope in local communities for that sort of co-operation between schools and local churches. I hope that we shall see much more of that so that assistance can be given to those heads and teachers who, for a variety of reasons, have difficulty in meeting the requirements of the law. I am sure that that would be widely welcomed. Schools that experience difficulty in meeting the legal requirements can turn to their local standing advisory council on religious education for advice. That is a local permanent body with responsibility for supporting the provision of both religious education and collective worship in the area.
There is no doubt that the subject is of the greatest importance. My right hon. Friend has expressed consistent views in the House over many years and has highlighted the importance of the subject. He has allowed us briefly


today to demonstrate not only the importance of the subject but the ways in which schools can be helped to comply with the law, which is not going to be changed. We want greater compliance—happier compliance—with the law so that we can ensure that the great religious tradition of this country can benefit pupils up and down the land, regardless of their personal, parental or family religion. Pupils must benefit from the core beliefs of the Christian religion, which is, and continues to be, so important to our society and our education system. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and hope that the few words that I have been able to say today have given him the reassurance that he sought in bringing the subject before the House.

Prescribed Disease D4 Claimants

Mr. Bill Etherington: Like many other Opposition Members, before the Christmas recess I voted against what were loosely called the Jopling proposals for the so-called modernisation of Parliament. However, I am pleased to take part in today's debate, because I regard these debates as perhaps the only positive thing that came out of the decision taken before Christmas.
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is present. I am pleased about that, because the subject about which I intend to speak affects many of his constituents as well as constituents in the whole of the former Tyne and Wear metropolitan authority area.
It does not give me any joy to have to raise this subject today. There are many disturbing aspects on which I hope the Minister can reassure me. Although the prescribed industrial disease, mucous membrane disease, has been with us for a long time, only in relatively recent years—from about 1990—has it become better known, as medical knowledge of it has improved.
There are various welfare rights agencies throughout Britain. I am sure that they do a good job in advising people on how to claim benefits and find their way through the maze of legislation. I imagine that there is none better than Sunderland centre for the unemployed, run by Dave Towler. I have the utmost admiration for him. He has done a tremendous job for the people whom he represents. He will always have my support whenever he requires it, because I am aware of the quality of his work.
There is a close relationship between the Liverpool centre for the unemployed and the one in Sunderland. In many ways, there is an interrelationship between the industrial backgrounds and heritages of Merseyside and Wearside and Tyneside. In April 1992, it was agreed that there would be a mass campaign to make claims in respect of prescribed disease D4, or mucous membrane disease.
After a few months, a total of 18,000 claims had been made, of which 5,000 were from Merseyside and 13,000 from the Tyne and Wear area. Early in the campaign, it became obvious that there was a tremendous disparity between the decisions made in Liverpool and those made in Sunderland. For example, we found that at the level of the adjudicating medical authority—which sounded much better when we called it a medical board—85 per cent. of those who claimed in Liverpool received satisfaction while in Tyne and Wear fewer than 1 per cent. did so. We are not talking about some inconsequential difference. There is a tremendous disparity. It begs a question that until now certainly has not been answered.
Many of those who underwent medicals for the adjudicating medical authority had received reports from ear, nose and throat consultants that they were suffering from the disease; yet the general practitioners employed by the DSS largely disregarded those reports. We found that somewhat unusual. I have always understood that a consultant's report should take precedence over what a GP might think on a subject of which he probably does not have so much knowledge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I wrote joint letters to Mr. Tinnion, regional chairman of the independent tribunal service, Judge


Thorpe, who was in charge of the national tribunal system, the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Lord Chancellor. We drew attention to the disparity. The replies that we received suggested that there was nothing to worry about; indeed, they appeared to deplore any parliamentary interference in their jealously guarded system of justice.
Following that response, Sunderland centre for the unemployed commissioned a statistical survey by Dr. Peter Kelly who lectures in statistics at Newcastle university medical school. The aim was to find some pattern between what happened in Liverpool and in Tyne and Wear. We have all the information, which I shall be only too pleased to make available to the Minister should he require it in order to take some action.
The survey highlighted the fact that, following the refusal of either the industrial tribunal service or the Department of Social Security to take action on the matter, some of the medical appeal tribunal consultants in the Tyne and Wear area began to be more favourable to appellants, even though we were told that there was nothing wrong and nothing needed to be changed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I wrote again to the various authorities that I mentioned. We received much the same sort of response. The fact that things seemed to have improved was ignored. Eventually, the various advice centres and Sunderland centre for the unemployed decided that the only way ahead, in view of the response that we had had—to say that it was tardy would be to suggest that it was rather better than it was—was to make use of the proper procedures of the full majesty of the law.
Between 150 and 180 appeals made from various offices were sent to the social security commissioner. The commissioner considered two cases. They are known as the Greer decision and the Blackwell decision. The decision was almost unprecedented for the commission. I shall read it out in full. It said:
The medical appeal tribunals who re-hear the cases should be composed of a different Chairman and different members all of whom have never sat on a medical appeal tribunal in Tyne and Wear in relation to the prescribed disease D4.
It is fair to say that, despite all the reassurances that my hon. Friend and I received from the various bodies, the commissioner most certainly thought that there was something wrong which needed to be put right.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the odd things about the case is the way in which the decisions made by medical people, who are presumably there as scientists rather than politicians, appear to reflect the political needs of the hour rather than the actual condition of the people whom they are supposed to examine?

Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I am afraid that I am too cynical an individual to give him the answer that he requires. It should be surprising. Unfortunately, I do not find it surprising. The point that he makes is one of which the Minister should certainly take note.
The commissioner was saying that there was something sadly wrong with the system in the north-east. The decision dealt with both adjudicating medical authorities and the medical appeal tribunals—two bodies which are

supposed to be completely independent in every way—yet it would appear that the commissioner was not prepared to accept that they were independent.
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I must use so many terms in the debate. It must be perplexing for people who are trying to follow the debate. It is easy enough for the likes of me, the Minister or other hon. Members who know the system well. There are so many sets of initials. It is sometimes difficult to keep up. It had been stated consistently in writing by the Benefits Agency medical service that no research had been done into mucous membrane disease, except the research that involved chromate-related damage to the mucous membrane. That is not true. A great deal seems to have been overlooked by the Benefits Agency medical service, certainly in the north-east of England.
Consultants acting on behalf of appellants throughout the sorry saga were so worried about the matter that a symposium was held on 20 June 1994 in York. It was attended by many ear, nose and throat consultants from Britain. They were addressed by eminent colleagues from Scandinavia and the United States who had carried out in-depth research into mucous membrane disease.
The symposium concluded that there was a condition called industrial rhinitis. I was pleased to have the privilege of attending that symposium. I do not pretend that it is a subject about which I know very much. I found the symposium enlightening but disturbing in some ways in view of what had happened before it took place. In attendance at the symposium was a representative from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council who later advised the Secretary of State on the list of prescribed diseases. Following the symposium and as a result of information that had been sent to the council by consultants, trade unions, and so on, in September 1994 the IIAC recommended to the Secretary of State that mucous membrane disease, prescribed disease D4, should be broadened to include industrial rhinitis. Out of this whole sorry saga, that is the one consolation.
I should be pleased to give the Minister all the information that I have in my possession—much of which came from his Department. A number of questions need to be answered. Those with the disease in the north-east have suffered an injustice and we want that to be put right along the lines set out by the commissioner. That has not yet happened and it shows no sign of happening.
My first point is how do the Government explain the difference between Liverpool and Tyne and Wear when the industrial backgrounds are the same? Secondly, we have proof that the full-time medical adviser gave misleading information to the Wearside adjudicating officer's department. I am pleased that one of my constituents, Brenda Jackson, has given me permission to use her name. Obviously, I will not name the doctor concerned. That is not for me to do; it is for the Department to find out and do something about him. I would never say anything in this place that I was not prepared to say outside it. However, the information is available if the Minister wants it. There has been a similar occurrence with a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), with which I have no doubt he will deal in due course. I have appraised him of the situation. It is believed that my hon. Friend's constituent lost his case because of misleading information.
Thirdly, the adjudicating medical authority is still not complying with the commission's written directions. When can we expect some progress on that? Fourthly, how can an organisation such as the DSS, with all its resources, not fund research, yet advice centres and independent consultants—sometimes even charitable bodies—seem able to do some research and produce tangible, worldwide evidence on the disease?
Fifthly, in some agreed minutes between the DSS and the advice centre in Sunderland about a meeting held on 3 August 1994, it was recognised that there was a need for uniformity in decision making. It was said that training was required, through the Benefits Agency, of the Department's general practitioners—the majority of whom are either part time or retired. Why has that not been done?
Sixthly, why are consultants' reports treated with such disregard—I might almost call it disdain—by those general practitioners? If they were in the mainstream of medicine and referring their patients to consultants, they would abide by the consultants' opinions. Why are there different standards?
Seventhly, because of fresh evidence supplied to the DSS and because of the threat of advice centres pursuing the matter to judicial review, has the DSS now agreed to review all prescribed disease D4 cases?
Eighthly, after the re-boarding of medicals there is documented evidence that appellants were deemed by the adjudicating medical authority to be suffering from various forms of rhinitis at their original medicals two years ago. As those decisions would now be brought within the commissioner's interpretation of prescribed disease D4, the review medicals by the same general practitioners show that those people are suddenly not suffering from any form of rhinitis.
Ninthly, boarding doctors are refusing to abide by even DSS policy division directives on how they are to proceed at review medicals. Doctors are refusing to examine appellants on review.
The impression that I get—I say this with some sadness—is that there is a force of opinion within the medical section of the Benefits Agency medical service in Tyne and Wear that has taken it upon itself to ensure that, come what may, appellants suffering from distressing conditions do not get their rightful entitlement. We can reach no other conclusion.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is there a case for sending the evidence to the ombudsman? It appears that there is some malpractice which should be investigated.

Mr. Etherington: I have to give my hon. Friend a somewhat cautious reply. So many things are wrong that I can honestly say that I do not know what is the best way forward. I hope that today's debate is the best way. I am just sorry that it has had to come to this.
I want to refer to the proceedings of a social security appeal tribunal held on 31 January, which involved my constituent to whom I referred earlier. I shall read out the relevant passage about misinformation from a doctor employed by the Benefits Agency. It states:
Mr. Towler invited clarification about document 28"—

which is the misleading document. It continues:
He submits that Mrs. Jackson has clearly not been examined by Department of Social Security consultants, only doctors of GP status. To this extent the document carries a wholly false (not just misleading) impression.
Miss Guthrie, the adjudication officer, conceded that point. It is a sorry state of affairs when I have to come to the House and report something that is basically the equivalent of perjury.
I know that the Minister is a sympathetic person, because of his involvement with bronchitis and emphysema. I hope that he will ensure that my constituent and the other 13,000 people in the north-east who are claiming in respect of the disease will have their claims reheard and that they will receive the same sort of justice as that received by the people on Merseyside.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing the Adjournment debate. From the presence of several of his hon. Friends, I recognise that there is widespread concern that goes beyond his constituency alone. I appreciate his concerns and I am aware of his active interest in this matter over a considerable time.
The prescribed disease in question, known as prescribed disease D4, has a long history and raises some difficult issues. I should like briefly to explain the background. The origins of the present prescription are to be found in the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906. It provided, from 1907 onwards, for compensation for ulceration of the mucous membranes of the nose and mouth. The original occurrence which led to the condition being added to the list of diseases at that time was the adverse effect—bleeding from the gums—found to be experienced by men unloading a certain type of iron ore.
It was recognised even then that because the condition prescribed was common among the general population, a clear link with a particular job could not be assumed in the individual case. The burden of proof that the disease arose as a result of work was, therefore, always left with the worker.
When the industrial injuries scheme was introduced in 1948, the present PD D4 was included as part of the adoption of the prescribed list of occupational diseases used by the Workmen's Compensation Acts, which the new scheme replaced. The disease is presently defined as:
inflammation or ulceration of the mucous membrane of the upper respiratory passages or mouth produced by dust, liquid or vapour".
The occupational requirements are:
any occupation involving exposure to dust, liquid or vapour".
It can be readily appreciated from what I have just said that both the disease and the occupational cover are in very general and wide terms.
One of the major problems with the present prescription of PD D4 is that the signs of the disease, such as running nose, feeling of nasal obstruction, occasional bleeding and loss of smell, are extremely common among the general population and have a multitude of possible causes. The disease is usually short-lived and generally causes very little disability of any serious or lasting nature. Furthermore, it can be extremely difficult to identify the specific cause of the condition. There are many different causes and other general factors, such as smoking or the


drying effects of central heating, which can worsen it. It is not surprising, therefore, that consistent diagnosis of the condition is very difficult; making a clear link with an occupational cause is even more difficult.
Until fairly recently, as the hon. Gentleman said, there were in fact very few claims made each year for PD D4. Then, in the spring of 1992, local trade unions and unemployment centres in the north-east of England mounted a campaign to encourage people to claim for the prescribed disease. The campaign subsequently spread to the north-west.
It was the increased number of claims received as a result of the campaign which highlighted the very general nature of the prescription and the difficulty that it presents in deciding claims. This, in turn, raised questions about the precise nature, causes and effects of the disease, since, if they could be laid down more precisely, much of the confusion to which the hon. Gentleman referred could perhaps be avoided.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), looked into the problem in 1993 and rightly decided in September 1993 to ask the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to consider and advise on the question of whether the present prescription of PD D4 should be changed and, if the council concluded that it should, to ask it for recommendations on revised terms of prescription. The council is the independent, expert body which has the statutory role to provide such advice; Ministers rely on it for advice. It has examined all the relevant scientific evidence that was available—the hon. Gentleman referred to members of the council taking an interest in these matters. The council completed its report towards the end of last year.
My officials are considering the implications of the council's findings. I expect to receive the report shortly and will respond in due course. However, any changes proposed by the council will not have retrospective effect and current claims must be decided on the basis of current legislation.
I should like at this point to explain the decision-making process for industrial injuries claims, because the hon. Gentleman asked several questions about that matter. The first question, which is decided by an independent lay adjudication officer, is whether the claimant satisfies the prescribed occupational requirements. Because the present prescription covers any occupation involving exposure to dust, liquid or vapour, few claims for PD D4 fail at this stage. Claims which satisfy the occupational requirements are then referred for medical examination. In the north-east, these examinations have been carried out by medical practitioners with higher qualifications in the specialty of ear, nose and throat surgery.
If the examining medical practitioner considers that the claimant is suffering from PD D4, he then acts as an independent adjudicating medical authority and assesses the degree and likely duration of any resulting disability. Where a prescribed disease has been diagnosed, adjudicating medical authorities also give advice to the lay adjudication officer on whether they consider the prescribed disease is due to the nature of the claimant's occupation. For most prescribed diseases, if the claimant satisfies the occupational test and is diagnosed as suffering from the disease, it is presumed that the disease was caused by the relevant occupation, if the claimant worked in it shortly before developing the disease. But as

I explained earlier, there is no such presumption for PD D4, because of its very common nature, and the link between the occupation and disease needs to be proved on the balance of probability in each case.
The claimant has a right of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal against the decision of an adjudicating medical authority, and to the social security commissioner—but only on a point of law. The adjudicating medical authority may review the decision if it is satisfied by fresh evidence that the original decision was given in ignorance of a material fact or was based on a mistake as to a material fact. I shall say a little more about that later.
I should make it absolutely clear to the House, especially in view of the intervention by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), that the adjudicating authorities, both lay and medical, are entirely independent. Neither Ministers nor officials can intervene in their decisions.
As I have already said, the characteristic features of PD D4 are very common indeed among the general population. Sometimes, it is not an easy task to determine whether these symptoms are due to a specific agent when they occur so commonly and widely. In these circumstances, diagnosis and clinical assessment are not an exact science; it is a matter of clinical judgment by the experienced independent doctors dealing with the cases who take account of the facts in each individual case.
Comprehensive training and continuing medical education programmes are pursued by Benefits Agency medical services to ensure that their doctors are expert both in the legal aspects and in the disablement assessment issues of all prescribed diseases. The training received for assessing PD D4 is part of that.
Doctors who serve as members of the adjudicating medical authorities are also trained by senior Benefits Agency doctors according to a well-established programme. Senior managers in Benefits Agency medical services regularly undertake quality assurance of the work of adjudicating medical authorities and set standards of performance.
Since 1992, as far as I know, there have been more than 8,000 claims for PD D4 in the north-east. In the vast majority of cases, the adjudicating medical authority has not found the claimant to be suffering from PD D4. Even where the disease has been diagnosed, in most cases the degree of disablement assessed has been below the 14 per cent. threshold which qualifies for payment of disablement benefit. On the latest figures available, less than 0.5 per cent. of the north-east claims have attracted an assessment of 14 per cent. or more.
The hon. Gentleman asked about differences between the north-east and the north-west, mentioning Liverpool in particular. Even in the north-west, fewer than 1.5 per cent. have had an assessment of 14 per cent. or more. In both cases, the proportions are very small. This low success rate reflects the fact that the disease is not generally very disabling. It is true that there is some difference between the level of diagnosis of PD D4 in the north-east and that in the north-west. This is a sign of the difficulty that medical authorities have had in deciding claims, for all the reasons that I described. That is why we asked the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to review the present prescription.
I mentioned earlier that reviews of medical authorities' decisions may be sought on the basis of fresh evidence. Last April, the Sunderland branch of the Trades Union


Congress, acting on behalf of claimants, sought fresh evidence reviews of a number of such decisions on the basis of a series of research papers from abroad. As from May, instructions were issued to all Benefits Agency medical service doctors on the interpretation of what constitutes fresh evidence. This information has been imparted to all authorities. I understand that the authorities have accepted that there is fresh evidence, enabling a review of earlier decisions. On review, however, in most cases they have not found that the earlier unfavourable decision should be revised.
The hon. Gentleman explained the principles laid down by the social security commissioner in two cases, and referred to the ruling given last November. The commissioner set out how, in his view, the medical adjudicating authorities should proceed when considering the diagnosis of PD D4. The Benefits Agency medical service issued guidance to adjudicating medical authorities on 19 January, four weeks ago, in the light of the commissioner's decisions.
Review cases still held at the medical board centre in Newcastle or at district offices in Wearside awaiting action will be scrutinised by the BAMS and any decisions that do not appear to comply with the principles laid down

by the commissioner will be referred to a fresh adjudicating medical authority for consideration of review on the ground of error of law. Where the fresh evidence review decision has already been communicated to the claimant, it is open to him, if he is unhappy with that decision, to apply for an error of law review or to appeal to the tribunal. Redress is available if people feel aggrieved, but I do not want to raise undue hopes that, as a consequence of further reviews, significantly more cases will result in payment of benefit, because—for all the reasons that I gave—occupational cause of the disease is difficult to demonstrate.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the BAMS will continue to monitor the situation. I particularly welcome the good local liaison arrangements that are in place, particularly with Sunderland TUC. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are brought to the attention of the appropriate people in the Benefits Agency, and I shall bear in mind his remarks when I consider the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council report in the near future.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman asked nine questions, I shall read the debate in Hansard, to make sure that I answered them all. If I have not, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the answers.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government, East Sussex

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government reorganisation in East Sussex.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): We received some 800 written representations, and Ministers also received four deputations.

Mr. Waterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for giving a sympathetic hearing to the delegation from my constituency, which I led. Although I am aware that he is still considering those complicated matters, will he give every weight to the strong support expressed by members of the delegation, who represented all shades of opinion in the town, for a unitary authority, so that the town can revert to running its own affairs as it did before 1974?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend brought an effective delegation to meet me. It was led by business people, with the council taking a relative back seat, which was sensible. I will examine the intrinsic merits of my hon. Friend's objective together with the position of the residual county, in the context of the powers available to us.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware of the results of the household survey by Hove borough council, which had a remarkable 33 per cent. response rate. It revealed that 77 per cent. of respondents opposed the joining of Hove with Brighton. I have received almost 600 individually written letters, all but six of which also opposed union with Brighton. Will my hon. Friend take into account evidence of public opinion on that important issue?

Mr. Curry: We take into account all representations concerning reorganisation projects.

Sustainable Development

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of how planning policies can be used more effectively to meet the objectives of sustainable development.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): We have revised our planning policy guidance so that sustainable development is at its centre.

Miss Nicholson: In my constituency planners are under external pressure to develop green-field sites, which is unpopular with local people. Will Government guidelines be applied fiercely to ensure that infill and derelict sites are used first, and that guidelines are strictly enforced in green-field areas?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is often easier to develop a green-field site than to reuse previously developed land. Every effort is made to ensure that the balance is firmly in favour of the reuse of old sites and the redevelopment and regeneration of city and

town centres. There will be occasions when a green-field site is most appropriate, but the case for that would have to be extremely well made out.

Mr. Bennett: The Government's revision of planning policy guidelines 6 and 16 is welcome, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider regional guidance? Is he aware that there is still pressure on local authorities in north-west England in particular to identify green-field sites for the development of business parks and similar projects? Is not it high time that all the emphasis was placed on regenerating inner-city derelict land and that local authorities were discouraged from making planning proposals for green-field developments?

Mr. Gummer: I am a little worried when I am asked to put all the emphasis on particular areas. Planning should not be about insisting on a prescriptive answer in every circumstance, irrespective of the position. The hon. Gentleman may agree that there are many instances in which business parks have brought jobs to the north-west and elsewhere in the UK. A proper decision should be made in each case, but we should be clear that the bias is towards the redevelopment of old land and the regeneration of city and town centres. The hon. Gentleman has my support in putting pressure on local authorities which sometimes do not exhibit as much urgent concern as we do.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who represent city constituencies are very concerned that their centre should retain their vitality, and that we very much welcome the change of emphasis-to restore them? Will he ensure that the policy that he has proposed is carried through to effective action?

Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that there is a very good example of partnership in the city of Lincoln between the private and the public sector. That is the way forward for regeneration generally. We are putting into place the planning environment to help that. I wish that some local authorities, which still prefer to provide car parking as a means of raising money rather than invigorating the town centre, would take up the challenge, because car parking is much better provided by private enterprise—it tends to be rather less smelly apart from anything else.

Water Leakage

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of water leakage.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): There is a level below which it is uneconomical to make efforts to reduce water leakage. That said, the latest estimate, based on information from the water companies, is around 29 per cent. We expect leakage to be reduced by around 20 per cent. over the next 20 years.

Mrs. Jackson: Is the Minister aware that 29 per cent. leakage is quite unacceptable? Is he aware of the view of the National Rivers Authority, which says that action by the water companies to halve that figure would make it quite unnecessary for them to go in for the unhealthy and


dangerous practice of compulsory water metering, which puts the pressure on the customer rather than the company? Will he take steps to ban that practice, so that pressure for investment is put on the companies to deal with that leakage?

Mr. Atkins: I would like the House to know the facts. First, most of that water leakage comes from domestic pipes, not company pipes. Secondly, there is a level below which it is uneconomical to go—that figure is of the average of 15 per cent. Thirdly, water companies have already spent some £3.7 billion on infrastructure support over the past few years, designed to cope with some of the problems. Fourthly—ironically, in view of the hon. Lady's obsessive campaign against water metering—the increased incidence of water metering will help to solve the problems of leakage.

Mr. Rowe: Is not it self-evident that if individual households have a clear desire and interest in reducing the leakage from their own premises, that they will do? There is no substitute for individual responsibility. Does my hon. Friend agree that that principle of individual responsibility about leakage could equally well be applied to the Cabinet?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend's point is apposite in relation to what Opposition Members are saying. They, supposedly, sign up to the principle of sustainable development, but when faced with a situation in which individuals, as well as others, are encouraged to take notice of leakage and the problems of maintaining water—a resource that we must watch carefully—they seem to avoid the practical realities of it. My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that problem.

Ms Glenda Jackson: What does the Minister think about the announcement by Thames Water only this week to renege on a commitment of £2.1 billion over five years in capital investment, which was reflected in an agreed price rise, and of its announcement that that capital investment programme will be reduced by £350 million, but that there will be no concomitant reduction in charges to householders? On average, domestic bills could be reduced by £10. Thames Water also announces with some pride that it will take a very tough line on non-payers in relation to disconnections. Surely that is not a state of affairs that the Government should allow to happen now or ever again in the future.

Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on the detail of the case, which is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. In general terms, Thames Water provides the cheapest water anywhere in the nation, and does so extremely well. I am delighted to hear that it is putting pressure on bad payers. The number of disconnections has decreased year on year, and to have that power in reserve is popular with the users of water throughout the country. All the indications are that that power in reserve is necessary and is supported by those who normally pay—the vast majority of the users of the commodity.

Housing Transfers

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many large-scale voluntary transfers of local authority housing stock have been completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: Thirty-six local authorities have transferred almost 162,000 dwellings. We are working with metropolitan authorities to identify ways of taking the policy forward there as well as in the shires.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the tenants of Maldon district council, 80 per cent. of whom voted in favour of transfer to the Plume housing association? Is he aware that that transfer will raise some £22 million, which can be used for the benefit of residents of the district? Will he, or one of his colleagues, consider accepting the council's invitation to attend the transfer ceremony?

Mr. Curry: Maldon has done very well. There was a high turnout, and 82 per cent. voted for the transfer. Tenant consent is at the heart of our policy.
We expect the local authority to complete its negotiation with the housing association shortly. That will clear the way for my right hon. Friend to make the final decision. My colleagues and I are always anxious to visit our hon. Friends' constituencies; indeed, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, plans to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) shortly.

Revenue Support Grant, Essex

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on Essex county council's revenue support grant settlement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): We received no representations from Essex county council during the period of consultation on the proposed revenue support grant settlement. The council did query data on pupil numbers with the Department for Education during the consultation period, and wrote to my officials on 31 January on the same matter.

Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend share my disgust at the fact that, despite substantial reserves and one of the best-ever settlements last year, socialist-controlled Essex county council's social services department ran out of money in October, blocking 79 beds at Basildon hospital, increasing waiting times at the accident and emergency unit and lengthening hospital waiting lists? Does he agree that, in the light of such incompetence, those socialist county councillors should resign or we should impeach them?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend rightly stresses the difference between socialist-controlled councils and others, but there is a wide variation in the effectiveness and efficiency even of councils not controlled by the Conservative party. For instance, Hertfordshire county council—whose area I represent—did not run out of money for that purpose, because it managed its money properly.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of a local government grant settlement that does not meet the cost of pay increases, a number of services in Essex will he reduced—including police and schools provision—and the council tax will generally rise? Does that not confirm that in the coming year, in terms of council tax, Essex man and Essex woman will be paying more and getting less?

Mr. Jones: What happens in any local authority depends very much on the effectiveness and efficiency of that authority. What my right hon. and hon. Friends have been asking local authorities to do is precisely what businesses have to do year in, year out: become more efficient.

Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of its profligate and wasteful policies, Liberal and Labour-controlled Essex county council has lost £8.5 million? The cuts that it has made to recover from those losses have affected the most vulnerable members of society—the old, the disabled and the young. Will my hon. Friend call on the council to use some of its £28 million reserves to restore the amount lost through those cruel cuts?

Mr. Jones: The management of the county council's finances is a matter for it, but I certainly urge all local authorities to examine ways in which they can become more efficient and to consider how they can use their reserves most profitably.

Rent-to-Mortgage Scheme

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely take-up of the rent-to-mortgage scheme in 1994–95 and. 1995–96.

Mr. Curry: Returns so far received from local authorities for the period to 31 December 1994 report that five sales have already been completed, and that almost 100 more applications have been accepted under the scheme.

Mr. Michie: This is yet another case of the Government getting themselves into a fine mess. Why do not they accept that the scheme is not working and that it has been expensive—the cost is estimated to be about £400,000 of taxpayers' money, which is not helping the cause? Why do not the Government admit that Labour predicted that? Instead of messing about with half-cocked schemes, the Government should start investing in new and refurbished homes to get our people off the streets and into decent housing.

Mr. Curry: As the scheme is part of the right to buy policy, I am sure that people will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to it as a half-cocked scheme. Giving people the opportunity to buy their own homes, whether through the right to buy or rent-to-mortgage schemes, gives people what many of them want. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that that is a valid objective.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the relatively low take-up is not the point? The Government give people choice. The Labour party would take it away.

Mr. Curry: The relatively low take-up is due to two things: first, the scheme has been in existence for 18

months only; and, secondly, the relationship between house prices and rents. The economic circumstances have meant that, for many people, it has made more sense to take advantage of the right-to-buy scheme, which is still yielding some 46,000 sales a year. That is what roost people want. We should ensure that they have the opportunity. I am surprised that the Opposition do not believe that that should be the case.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that this is an issue not of choice, but of integrity and a sense of probity in public life? The Government have wasted £414,000 promoting a scheme that the Opposition warned in Committee would be a costly flop. Does the Minister now recognise that, with a rate of one taker every three months, and with a cost, as I estimate it, of £83,000 for every person taking up the scheme, it is high time that the matter was referred to the Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman appears to be enunciating the somewhat curious doctrine that we should introduce a scheme and then ensure that no one knows about it. If one introduces a scheme, one publicises it. This scheme is in its early stages. It is intended to be an adjunct of the right-to-buy policy. No one expected that major volumes would arise from the scheme, but it is a useful way for people in particular circumstances to have access to buying their own homes which they might not otherwise have. It is, therefore, a sensible part of a poky that is highly successful, and which the Opposition parties have opposed during the past few Parliaments. People will remember that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend accept that another acceptable method of choice would be introduced if his Department accepted the proposal of Wyre borough council to transfer its stock to a housing association, and to consult, and ballot, the tenants?

Mr. Curry: That is a sensible way of diversifying tenure because it rests on tenants' consent. It liberates resources for the refurbishment of houses that are transferred to the housing association, and it liberates resources for the local authority to use to maintain properties that remain in its possession. Everyone gains, therefore, from a sensible policy, and I commend it to the House.

Housing Renovation Grant

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to announce his Department's changes in the housing renovation grant system.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the provision of disabled facilities grants.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: An announcement about any changes arising from the review of the house renovation grant system, including disabled facilities grants, will be made in due course.

Mr. Pike: Ministers have been saying for nearly a year now that the answer on the consultation will be given "shortly". Can we take it that the Minister now recognises that the biggest problem is not the scheme, but that councils have insufficient money to meet their legal


obligation to make a mandatory grant? Instead of changing the scheme, will the Government make more money available to local authorities?

Mr. Jones: We have had a number of representations, some of which have been in favour of changing the scheme—the most recent came from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) during an Adjournment debate—and some of which have been on the subject of resources. Some authorities clearly needed more money to fulfil their obligations, but others have underspent the money that we have allocated to them. That matter must also be dealt with.

Mr. Hinchliffe: During the review of disabled facilities grants, will the Minister consider in detail the operation of the means test? Is he aware that, in many instances, local authorities are having to lend individuals and families money to pay their contribution under the means test, and that there is no way in which people can repay those loans? Is he aware that, in some circumstances, people have given up the ghost because they simply could not afford to make their contribution under the means test? Will he deal with that matter as the matter of urgency?

Mr. Jones: We shall certainly examine the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I know that he has taken an interest in the subject for a long time. I must point out that 80 per cent. of these grants now involve no contribution from the applicant and that in other cases topping-up money is sometimes made available from local authorities' social services departments. However, I shall examine the matter carefully.

Sir Anthony Durant: I thank my hon. Friend for the extra tranche of money given to Reading borough council for the renovation grants. When considering future grants, will he bear in mind the state of the housing stock in a town such as Reading, which contains a great deal of pre-war property that is deteriorating badly?

Mr. Jones: That is one of the points that we take into account in the allocations each year, in addition to the effectiveness of the local authorities' renewal strategy. However, it is not only my hon. Friend's constituency that benefited from the extra tranche. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will know that we were able to give an extra £400,000 to his local authority in the second tranche and will increase the allocation for next year still further.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a very valuable scheme? Will he allow local authorities to cap the amount of grant that they give so that they can be made to fit local needs, prices and priorities?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the need for flexibility, which has been stressed to me many times by the members of local authorities whom I have met during the housing investment programme round and on other occasions. We shall be taking that idea into account before we announce our final decision on the system.

Mr. Wigley: May I press the Minister further on the position of disabled people who need grants for certain facilities but who are means tested? I draw his attention to the case of a father with a severely disabled son. He

has an income of only £200 a week and faces enormous costs because of the son's disability, but is required to pay a contribution of £10,000 towards downstairs facilities, a sum that he and his family cannot afford. Will the Minister reconsider the way in which the formulae are worked out so that such difficulties can be avoided?

Mr. Jones: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall examine the case. It would be sensible for him to send me details of the case so that I can give it particular attention.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent survey in Ealing showed that 70 per cent. of disabled and able-bodied people are highly dissatisfied with the speed and quality of the repair service offered by Ealing council? That is a very high figure and it is still rising. Will he do something to put a bomb under Ealing's Labour council to make it improve this most important service to its people?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has proved time and again that he is one of the most effective bombs that one can put under an inefficient local authority.

Job Creation

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new jobs have been created through regeneration policies since April 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Since April 1992, my Department's policies have created or safeguarded 340,000 jobs.

Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that one way in which regeneration policies could create jobs and meet a major social need at the same time is through investment in housing? Is not it therefore pretty scandalous that the amount of money available under regeneration policies for housing has been cut with the single regeneration budget and that in Birmingham not one penny has been made available for the major housing project proposed by the council? There are 17,000 people on Birmingham's housing list, so is it not time that the Government adopted regeneration policies that are worthy of the name, created jobs and gave people the homes that they need?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman will reflect that the single regeneration budget operates on a partnership basis, and the make-up of the bid was Birmingham's choice. In respect of housing, I remind him that in 1995–96 Birmingham will receive more than £22 million from the estate action programme, £12 million for Castle Vale housing action trust, £8.5 million for Heartlands urban development corporation, which includes some housing, £7.7 million for city challenge, which also includes housing and, as we ought to reflect unemployment, £1.25 million for the task force.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although regeneration policies are normally associated with the large industrial conurbations of the north, which receive most taxpayers' money, there is not a market town in the south of England or, for that matter, anywhere else in the country, that would not benefit from concentrating on urban regeneration schemes that would shift the centre of gravity of our towns back to the centre?

Sir Paul Beresford: I agree with my hon. Friend, but we should reflect on the converse of that. Many of the


areas that need urban regeneration are under Labour or Liberal control, with poor quality services and high taxes imposing a burden on local businesses and the local community.

Out-of-town Shopping Developments

Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new out-of-town shopping developments await planning approval subject to appeals to his Department.

Mr. Gummer: Eighteen, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Hill: Will the Secretary of State reaffirm his policy of halting the spread of out-of-town supermarket developments, which have wreaked havoc on many local shopping centres such as Streatham high road in my constituency, where one in five shops now stands idle? To show that he is earnest in his intent, will he ensure that all appeals against such developments are now upheld?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot possibly prejudge any appeal now before me. The case of a site adjacent to Streatham is in that position, and I must therefore look at it carefully. I cannot say that all appeals will be turned down, as that would be wholly improper. I must look at each case, and sometimes the circumstances will be such that it is right to allow something which, in general, I seek to discourage. That is bound to happen. I can think of a number of cases on which the hon. Gentleman would probably agree with me, but I look at each case separately. I have made it clear to those who make such proposals that the priority is regeneration in our city and town centres and the liveliness of those centres, and I shall need extremely good proof that such a proposition does not detract from important city centre priorities before I grant permission for such developments to go ahead.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend remember, when listening to the siren voice of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), that the consumer likes choice and parking facilities, and she is more likely to get those out of town than in Streatham high road?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not be drawn on Streatham high road. It is essential for the regeneration of our city centres that provision for parking is made, that parking is properly run and that people are given the opportunities that they expect in out-of-town centres. I agree that people like choice and they must therefore have the choice not to use their cars if they do not want to or cannot, and they must have an opportunity to choose between shops, which is what city centres offer. Choice is not enhanced by destroying town centres where comparative choice and shopping is much easier.

Mr. Vaz: We welcome the Secretary of State's recent conversion to supporting town and city centres. Why is he so afraid to be clear about whether the Government support or oppose out-of-town shopping centres? How does he propose to deal with the hundreds of outstanding planning permissions granted for those monstrous sheds which, if implemented with his approval, would destroy his planning policy?

Mr. Gummer: Given the long list of Labour-controlled local authorities that have destroyed their city centres by damaging businesses within them, having taxed them out

of existence and ensured that, whenever business men wanted a new scheme, they turned them down, the whole country is littered with the results of bad local planning by Labour councils. The Labour party has done more to damage Britain's city centres than any other single force since the war. That is the problem that we face. The hon. Gentleman, who has not yet been converted to any planning policy and is in no position to say whether I have, should contain himself. Our policy supports city and town centres and the growth of the kind of life that we want there. Those who have already gained planning permission for a site will be able to retain it, because, unlike the Opposition, the Government do not go back on their promises.

Revenue Support Grant, Bedfordshire

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is planning to make any further statement on the revenue support grant for Bedfordshire for 1995–96.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: On 1 February, the House approved the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96, which specified the basis of the revenue support grant for each authority. We have no plans to make any further statement on that grant for the coming year.

Sir David Madel: My hon. Friend will be aware of the representations that I have made to the Government about the spending limit of Bedfordshire for 1995–96. Will he confirm that Bedfordshire county council still has time to make a case for raising its spending limit for 1995–96, but that it is also within its power, and it is perfectly capable of doing so, to protect school budgets next year?

Mr. Jones: What my hon. Friend says about the proposals is perfectly true. I find it difficult to understand how the Labour and Liberal majority on Bedfordshire county council can possibly translate what is an allowance to increase its spending into an attempt to impose cuts on schools. That simply shows how antagonistic it is towards education.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that the local government grant settlement, for which most Bedfordshire Tory Members voted a couple of weeks ago, will mean cuts in expenditure by Bedfordshire county council and Bedfordshire districts, such as Luton? The settlement: threatens £9 million cuts in Bedfordshire's schools, while at the same time forces up the council tax. Does that not mean that people in Bedfordshire, like people in Essex, will be forced to pay more and get less?

Mr. Jones: I must repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, because he obviously did not listen the first time. Businesses in this country, whether small or large, have dedicated themselves to becoming more and more efficient year in, year out. I expect Bedfordshire county council, like other county councils and borough councils, to do the same.

Sir Graham Bright: Does my hon. Friend agree that before Bedfordshire county council, led by the Liberals and the Labour party, starts criticising and cutting, it


should look at its own efficiency—in particular, at the fact that it is carrying about 16,000 surplus places within its schools?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the need for local authorities to re-examine continually their spending priorities and their efficiency. I am struck by the fact that Bedfordshire county council, almost alone among county councils, has failed to supply its manpower figures to the Department for the past two years.

Job Creation

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of new jobs which have been created through regeneration policies since April 1992.

Sir Paul Beresford: In view of the close similarity to Question 8, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that competition between areas for single regeneration budget funding has produced a dog eat dog scenario, where there are many more losers than there are winners? What assurances can he give the House that areas such as Darlington, which have so far not qualified for funding for regeneration schemes, will do so in the future?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the competition has generated better partnerships and better services. As for Darlington, we must ask the hon. Gentleman to stop whingeing and to get back there to help it put a decent case together, so that it can win next time.

Dr. Twinn: Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear the whingeing about Birmingham and Darlington today? Is he aware that the help that the Government have given towards job creation in north London, the Lea valley, Tottenham, Enfield and Edmonton is greatly appreciated and is already creating new jobs?

Sir Paul Beresford: Yes, I am aware of that. It is also important to stress that urban regeneration means just that. Job creation represents just one part of that regeneration, the rest relates to housing, education and infrastructure. That is the point of offering a urban regeneration package.

Social and Economic Inequality

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of his Department's policies are designed specifically to relieve (a) social and (b) economic inequality in urban areas; and how successful they have been.

Mr. Curry: My Department's aim is to promote sustainable communities through economic, social and environmental policies.

Mr. Hughes: I am delighted to hear from the Minister about the Department's aim. Given that the Rowntree report produced last week—I know that its findings are contested—shows that the gap between the bottom 20 per cent. and the top 20 per cent. has more than doubled in the past 15 years, does he accept that the reality of Government policy, including those of his Department, is a nation of two cities—the haves and the have nots? Will

he undertake to review all his Department's policies to create something like the policy in which the Prime Minister says the Government believe, but which is not being delivered on the ground?

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Rowntree report obviously asks questions, and one can interpret those questions in different ways and give different answers to them; that is part of normal political debate. The number one recommendation of the Rowntree report is that priority should lie in education and training. It is interesting to note, from the first round of our single regeneration budget bids, that that is precisely where the local partnerships have put their priorities. That demonstrates that local partnerships are identifying education and training as the seedcorn for regeneration policies. The hon. Gentleman and I can agree with that.

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: If the policies of the Government are as the Minister has said, what will the Department of the Environment do about Westminster city council, which has systematically engaged in a policy of gentrification, social cleansing and homes for votes? The Department has sat and done nothing while those policies have continued, month on month, year after year.

Mr. Curry: In so far as there are any proceedings taking place about any actions in Westminster city council, it is for those proceedings to continue. In so far as Westminster city council runs a very efficient council in London, I commend it to many of those inner-city councils which have a great deal to learn from it.

Government Regional Offices

Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make the Government offices of the regions more accountable to the people living in those regions.

Mr. Gummer: Government offices are already directly accountable to Parliament through me and the other Ministers to whom they report.

Mr. Denham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the decision last year to refuse a partnership bid to bring improved heating and insulation to the 1,000 people on the Holyrood estate in my constituency was taken, to all intents and purposes, by unelected and unaccountable officials working in the Government office of the south-east? Is it not the case that those officials are only part of a pattern of regional English government that spends and allocates nearly £6 billion a year and influences far more? As we have English regional government, is it not high time that English regional government was made accountable to the people that it serves?

Mr. Gummer: First of all, all decisions are advised by civil servants but agreed by Ministers, including the decision relating to Southampton. Secondly, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is asking for a bit more clarity from the Labour party. He has fought for a unitary authority for Southampton; now he wants to take that unitary authority away and have a regional government.
I understand also that the difficulty for Conservative Members is that the Opposition spokesman has one policy on regional government, the previous spokesman had another policy, and it is difficult to discuss English


regional government in the House when the person who makes the decisions is not here, but speaks to the television and radio, saying that the Opposition have now put off regional government, because they have suddenly discovered that it would mean five tiers of government for large numbers of people, which people do not want and do not want to pay for.

Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the south-east there are already improved communications between local bodies and central Government? Is he further aware that the regional office now has a much clearer picture of local needs than it did, and is hence much more likely to match the needs with grants? Does he agree that a regional assembly or, even worse, control by local councillors, would be the last thing to generate the growth that is needed in the south-east of England?

Mr. Gummer: First, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Labour party supported the idea of bringing together the various local offices of Government, so that we had a common view throughout a range of things, and there was a holistic answer and not individual sectional answers.
Secondly, it is a very odd world, is it not, where the Labour party is now telling its supporters in the counties that, if Labour returned to power, it would cancel, ban and stop all county councils. The Labour party has decided on the abolition of the county councils, irrespective of the fact that all the county councils controlled by the Labour party are fighting for their continuance.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that the Government cannot have their cake and eat it? A few questions ago, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), gave a favourable and sympathetic answer to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), who called for local accountability—in effect, devolution. The Secretary of State then poured scorn on those of us who believe that a much more efficient and just administration can be provided with a much greater level of devolution than that which the Government are prepared to consider.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) that, far from getting the local accountability which comes from unitary authorities, Southampton should turn it down in favour of a new tier of local government which is called regional government. People in England do not want regional government, and people in Scotland and Wales do not want regional or national government.

Area Cost Adjustment

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to review the area cost adjustment.

Mr. Curry: We will carry out research to improve the geographical basis of area cost adjustment. One possibility is to use travel-to-work areas as the basis for the adjustment.

Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas there is real understanding that some parts of the country face higher costs than others, there is also real concern about the method of distribution of the area cost adjustment? For example, it allocates more than

£200 per child to the education SSA in Hertfordshire, yet it allocates nothing to Derbyshire. Will my hon. Friend address those disparities in his most welcome review?

Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, the area cost adjustment recognises the additional total labour costs in the south-east. The problem is that, as it is constructed at the moment, the south-east alone is eligible for it, and there are very good reasons for that.
However, I wish to examine whether we can change the basis of distributing the area cost adjustment by looking at travel-to-work areas, so that the whole country can be eligible for it. If that proves to be a more robust method, we will adopt it. If it does not, I am not prepared to make a change unless I am sure that it will be an improvement which I can defend as being totally impartial.

Mr. William O'Brien: When considering any changes to the system, will the Minister have regard to the authorities in the Webber Craig group, including Wakefield, which are at a disadvantage because of pupil-cost ratios? A few weeks ago I also raised with the Prime Minister the matter of cuts to the fire service in that area and the costs involved. Will the Minister lake seriously the representations from Wakefield and West Yorkshire about those issues?

Mr. Curry: The Webber Craig group of local authorities has been very effective in bringing forward ideas—for example, its idea of compensation for employment and health problems—which are now part of the distribution method.
Central to the question is the fact that, if local authorities believe that there are issues which must be addressed, we shall examine them, together with my own agenda of matters that I intend to review in the course of the year. The procedure is conducted with the co-operation of local authority associations, which enables us to arrive at a method which everyone subscribes to as being as fair and objective as possible.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I recognise the need for the area cost adjustment, because some areas face higher costs than others, but can the Minister not find a better system of tapering out those areas of high cost? For example, Oxfordshire receives area cost adjustments whereas Gloucestershire does not receive anything. Would it not be fairer to taper it off gradually to nothing throughout the country?

Mr. Curry: It would be quite difficult to measure additional costs in the south-east if we went as far as Berwickshire to judge them. We have clearly improved the taper in the south-east and I am now satisfied that it works within the confines of that method. If we are to try to move to a nation-wide system we shall have to look for an alternative method, and in that context we are now considering travel-to-work areas. I hope that that will work, as it will enable me to use a system which I believe that all people will perceive as being fair, objective and universally applicable.

County Hall, London

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an official tour of County hall, London SE1.

Sir Paul Beresford: My right hon. Friend has recently visited County hall.

Mr. Banks: I urge the Minister and his colleagues to take a very close interest in what is occurring at County hall. It is becoming clear that neither the London residuary body nor the Secretary of State's predecessor, the present Home Secretary, studied the bid from the cowboy organisation, Shirayama. There is a scandal in the making at County hall. Ministers may not feel that they owe it to themselves to examine it closely and take direct action, but do they not owe it to the people of London to do so?

Sir Paul Beresford: I have considerable respect for the hon. Gentleman's interest in County hall because it was his political nursery. The preparatory work that is going on there is being watched and inspected carefully—particularly by English Heritage, which was there some two weeks ago.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the plans for County hall, involving a hotel complex and other such proposals, were not to go ahead, would my hon. Friend consider proposals to place the London School of Economics there? That would be far better than a bloated and expensive bureaucracy at the expense of people of Greater London, as proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Sir Paul Beresford: There is no evidence of any need for that. I understand that the most recent comment by Mr. Shirayama, while viewing his earthquake-destroyed property, was that he was working on a property in London—County hall.

Waste Strategy

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Government's waste strategy programme.

Mr. Atkins: Last week we issued for public consultation a draft waste strategy for England and Wales. It aims to use the principles of sustainable development to provide a coherent framework for waste management policy and practice. Copies of the document are available in the Library.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Could he clear up a question about green taxes? He will appreciate that many people are campaigning that Britain should follow that line. Does he accept that there is a dilemma with the green tax? Although it discourages environmentally unfriendly activity, Governments can be hooked on the income that it raises. Are the Government introducing the landfill levy primarily to increase funds for the Government, or to discourage the use of landfill sites for waste disposal?

Mr. Atkins: The levy will not increase funds directly to the Government. The whole idea of it as an economic instrument is to make people think through their waste strategy in companies or local corporations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also like to address his

concerns to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ultimately is responsible for these matters.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have been under great pressure to stop waste dumping and the burial of waste. Is he aware that in many cases, such as Dorset, the supposedly greener option of waste to energy has been wholly unacceptable, as it has to my constituents? Are we going in the wrong direction in trying to press those solutions when the green lobbies themselves are saying they are worse than waste dumping? Perhaps we should go back to the old technology.

Mr. Atkins: As it happens, yesterday I was at the Henry Doubleday Research Association, which does much work in composting and the recycling of organic waste. I was taken to Leicestershire to see a particular site that the county is operating. Many other waste authorities are also recycling and composting green waste. In the future that is likely to happen more often than not. If my hon. Friend has problems in Dorset that he feels that I can address, I shall be more than happy to help him and my other hon. Friends.

Mr. Beggs: Has the Minister considered giving any incentive to encourage waste burning to create energy as opposed to supporting landfill?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that some councils in Northern Ireland have done some really remarkable work on waste to energy. Down is the case in point, but I know from my former incarnation as a Northern Ireland Minister how much work was being done on alternative sources of energy. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman directs his question to the Minister responsible for such matters in the Province. I am trying to do my best over here on the basis of the good knowledge and experience that I gained in Northern Ireland.

Ms Ruddock: Further to that answer, what is the Minister's response to the report in The Observer last weekend that some municipal incinerators were emitting dioxins at a rate of more than 300 times the Government's safety limits and that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution believes that they should be reduced by 90 per cent? What are his plans on the landfill levy in respect of local authorities? It appears to us that it would be a diversion of money from council tax payers straight to the Treasury.

Mr. Atkins: I never make the mistake of reading The Observer, so I cannot comment on that particular report; however, I understand that the serious issue underlying the hon. Lady's question is worth pursuing. I shall certainly ask HMIP exactly what the hon. Lady is referring to and ask for a report on it as soon as possible. Question Time is perhaps not the time to discuss the detail of the landfill levy, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we have many more policies relating to waste disposal than ever she does.

Mr. Gamier: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting the constituency factory to which he referred. Do not his


interest in that factory and his visit to Leicestershire demonstrate the Government's attitude towards private and Government partnership in that sector?

Mr. Atkins: I am only sorry that the Whips did not allow my hon. Friend to be with me yesterday when I visited his constituency. He is right—the issue is all about partnership between the private sector and local authorities, as well as making companies recognise what can be done. Above all, the message that I would ask my hon. Friend to take back to his attractive part of Leicestershire is that domestic users of green waste from the garden can have it recycled and use it again for compost to benefit their gardens—it is a good system.

Local Authority Services

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to allow local authorities to extend and improve their services.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Since 1979 we have taken, and are continuing to take, a range of measures and quality initiatives for improving the value for money in local authority services, including establishing the Audit Commission, compulsory competitive tendering and introducing the citizens charter and performance indicators.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister understand that Essex county council's ability to improve and extend services is substantially hindered by the unfair rate support grant settlement? Will he consider the accuracy of his earlier reply, when he told the House that there had been no representations from Essex about rate support grant? There have been representations, and on 1 February a letter was sent to the Secretary of State complaining about the alteration without consultation of the demographic data relating to education services. Has not my county been disadvantaged by the inefficiency and bureaucracy of the Department? When will the leader of the council receive a reply to his letter of 1 February addressed to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that there had been no representations in the period up to the laying of the order before the House. Of course, representations after the order has been laid are too late—the point that has been made to Essex county council.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that compulsory competitive tendering has contributed considerably to the improvement of local government services? Will he consider possible ways of extending that system? The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) seems to want to terminate it, much to the horror of many Labour council leaders.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right. Compulsory competitive tendering has resulted in substantial savings for council tax payers and a substantial improvement in quality in many cases. It is fascinating for Ministers talking to Labour-controlled councils about CCT for housing management—they find that those councils are, for the first time, discussing with their tenants what should be provided and at what quality.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister not understand that, in places like Shropshire and Oxfordshire, parents,

governors and even Tory county councillors are up in arms about the Government and are clearly saying that they want better services and are prepared to pay for them? They do not want a Government who tell them to pay more and get less.

Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Shropshire, it may be relevant to remind the House that Shropshire local authority employs 32.7 staff per 1,000 of the population, whereas Gloucestershire employs 21 staff per thousand of the population—the local authorities are not that dissimilar. Shropshire and other councils should consider their manpower levels and start saving.

Council House Repairs

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that council tenants can get repairs carried out quickly.

Mr. Curry: We introduced the new right-to-repair scheme on 1 April 1994. That gives tenants the right to have certain urgent repairs done quickly and at no cost to themselves.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he consider the other problems with council repairs: their cost and their quality? My hon. Friend should look seriously at the need to give council tenants and council leaseholders a vetting power over the cost of council repairs and the standard to which they are done. Council tenants and council leaseholders pay for the repairs.

Mr. Curry: The law gives leaseholders protection against unreasonable service charges. Landlords can recover the charges only if they are reasonably incurred and the work is of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders have the right to be consulted, to inspect accounts on which charges are based and to challenge unreasonable charges in the courts. I should be pleased to receive information from my hon. Friend about the specific problems brought to him by his constituents.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of prospects for the development of compulsory competitive tendering on housing management.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have put in place the legislative framework extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. The first contracts are due to be in operation from April 1996. I am pleased to say that local authorities are making good progress with their preparations.

Mr. Fishburn: As competitive tendering always produces cheaper, more efficient and more humane management of the public housing stock, can my hon. Friend tell me why so many people on the Opposition Benches remain opposed to it?

Mr. Jones: I think that they approach the matter with political dogma rather than adopting a flexible approach such as that taken by the Government. No local authority in history has done everything by direct labour. No local authority in history has done everything by private contractor. The proper thing is to draw a boundary—not


on the basis of political whim and dogma—and to use a process of competitive tendering against a specification, invite tenders, judge their quality and award the contract.

Mr. Skinner: Now that it is known that more than £50 billion is spent by the quangos that have been set up by the Tories, what steps have the Government taken to ensure that quangos use compulsory competitive tendering?

Mr. Jones: Non-departmental public bodies are encouraged to go through a process of tendering as much as any other body. Competitive tendering has brought a great deal of benefit, for example, in the health service. It has been possible to feed those benefits through into patient care.

Out-of-town Shopping Developments

Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new out-of-town shopping developments await planning approval subject to appeal to his Department.

Mr. Gummer: Eighteen.

Mr. Sutcliffe: How does the Minister intend to stop abuses by property speculators such as Spring Ram Corporation in my constituency, which blackmailed the local authority into providing planning permission in green-belt areas by promising jobs and then set up a retail development? How will that assist local authorities such as Bradford, which suffer blight in their city centres?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that there can be no movement from a non-retail operation to a retail operation. There have been many occasions on which people have pretended that they were doing something different. I have insisted that the decision be made on the proper planning grounds. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring that case to me, I will examine it carefully.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports me in putting pressure on local authorities to recognise that if we are not to have out-of-town shopping centres which will mar the countryside, they must make the inner cities and the towns much more attractive to business and to shoppers. Therefore, the next stage must be a real reaction of support from local authorities. I am getting such support from some local authorities of all political parties.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the outstanding contribution that out-of-town shopping centres have made in enhancing facilities for disabled people, in making it more pleasurable to go shopping and in making local authorities

question carefully how they develop town centres, so as to attract shoppers rather than, as has happened so often in the past, discourage them?

Mr. Gummer: I agree that much of the improvement in city centres and town centres, particularly those run by Labour authorities, has been the result of the development of out-of-town shopping centres and the fear that unless standards are raised it will be impossible to stop people moving to the out-of-town centres. I hope that we shall see an increasing willingness to provide the same quality and choice in our city centres as is available outside.

Water Leakage

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates of water leakage.

Mr. Atkins: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier.

Mr. Howarth: I did not have the benefit of hearing the Minister's answer on that occasion, but having heard similar answers on many other occasions, I am sure that it was up to his usual inadequate standard. Is not the important point that a great deal of water could be conserved if the Government, in conjunction with the water companies, embarked on an active campaign to stop the leaks and conserve water?

Mr. Atkins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not be here earlier; I am sure that he had a good reason for that. What I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), which I reiterate, is that much of the wastage is from the domestic, rather than the company, source. Companies are already spending a large sum dealing with the problem.
However, generally speaking, the hon. Gentleman's point is right. That is why I was associated with the Water Services Association launch of a detailed technical document dealing with the problems of leakage. I shall be delighted to ask the association to send the hon. Gentleman a copy, which will make good reading for him.

Mr. Fabricant: I want to take up the point about water wastage at domestic level. My hon. Friend will he aware that Armitage Shanks is based in my constituency. Will he resist the growing pressure in Europe for the European method of flushing toilets, which causes a great deal of water leakage, to be adopted in Britain? Our system uses a vacuum siphon method, which prevents water leakage.

Mr. Atkins: I shall do my best to prevent a chain reaction.

Madam Speaker: Order. On that note we shall move to the private notice question.

Regional Electricity Companies

Dr. John Cunningham: (by private notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about Government policy on the future ownership of regional electricity companies in the light of his decision not to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the bid by Trafalgar House to take over Northern Electric.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): It is Government policy that the ownership of the regional electricity companies should be decided by the market and should be subject to normal merger control procedures. Yesterday's decision by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was fully consistent with that policy and with the Government's long-standing policy that mergers should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission primarily on competition grounds.
The Director General of Fair Trading, in his statutory advice, said that the merger did not raise any competition concerns and that the wider public interest issues raised by Northern Electric and third parties did not warrant reference to the MMC. The President agreed with that advice. In addition, however, the President noted the regulatory concerns of the Director General of Electricity Supply and obtained assurances from Trafalgar House to address them. The DGES is currently discussing with Trafalgar appropriate amendments to Northern Electric's licence. They will ensure that he can continue to regulate effectively to protect customer interests in the event of the takeover proceeding.
Until 31 March 1995, the Government retain a special share in all the regional electricity companies, which effectively prevents a takeover. Trafalgar must therefore wait until after that date to obtain control of Northern Electric—assuming, of course, that the shareholders agree the bid. The same is true for bids for any of the other regional electricity companies.
The Government made it clear in 1990, at the time of electricity privatisation, that the special shares would be redeemed and that from that date the regional electricity companies should be exposed to the normal disciplines of the market.
As I made clear, it will now be for Northern Electric shareholders to decide whether to accept Trafalgar's bid.

Dr. Cunningham: Is not it clear from the nature and the length of the Minister's reply that this is a major policy decision, which should have been the subject of a statement in the House by the President of the Board of Trade in the first place? Is not the President taking a rather curious view of his responsibilities when he says that he cannot answer questions before making his decision, yet apparently does not want to answer questions after he has made his decision either? The right hon. Gentleman is not usually reticent about his role in Government policy.
Does the Minister recognise that when he talks about decisions being taken by the market, regulated, private enterprise, monopoly regional electricity companies are not normal market companies, but something very different?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we believed—as did many other people—that there were strong grounds for a reference of this issue to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Has not the public interest been ignored by the President in not making such a reference?
Can the Minister confirm that it is true that the Securities and Futures Authority and the Securities and Investments Board are both raising important questions about insider dealing and dubious City practices connected with the role of the Swiss Bank Corporation in this affair? Can the Minister assure the House, if the Trafalgar House bid is successful—or if other bids for other RECs are successful—that properly transparent accounting practices will prevail in the future management of the regional electricity companies; and that they will not simply be used as cash generators for their new owners?
Is not it clear that the regulator has serious doubts about the proposed takeover in respect of his own powers and of the effectiveness of regulation under potential new ownership? Can the Minister say whether the so-called behavioural undertakings imposed on Trafalgar House will be legally binding? As the industry regulator apparently pressed for a referral to the MMC, why was his advice rejected?
Is it at all likely that the free-for-all that is about to ensue in the ownership and control of private monopoly regional electricity companies will ever produce the best solution or the best way of providing a rational structure for the electricity supply industry, to the benefit of its consumers and its employees?

Mr. Evans: Yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade followed the usual practice of the Department of Trade and Industry when considering referrals to the MMC. In this instance, there has been no departure from the usual practice.
It has been suggested that the President should have waited to make the announcement until his return from India where, as the House will know, he is leading a trade delegation in the interests of developing the economic prospects of this country. He is due to return tomorrow. It was of course the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who insisted on a response to his question in the House today, in full knowledge of the whereabouts of the President of the Board of Trade. His remarks in that regard should be seen in that light.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the privatised electricity companies are not normal companies offers us some understanding of his outlook. We have consistently argued that, subject to the regulatory concerns that all in this House share, they are indeed normal companies, operating in the private sector. It was the very regulatory concerns outlined by the right hon. Gentleman when he asked me questions about the matter on Wednesday last week which were dealt with in the assurances given by Trafalgar House to the President of the Board of Trade, and which are referred to in his statement.
The right hon. Gentleman ignores what both I in my statement and the President in his have clearly stated, in two material particulars. The Director General of Fair Trading advised the President of the Board of Trade, first, that there were no competition concerns that would, in the


circumstances, merit a reference; secondly, he also advised the President against a reference on public interest grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman carted into his remarks the accusation of, as he put it, "insider dealing". He should reflect on the clear statement already made by the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that the appropriate authorities are already looking into that. Yesterday's decision by the President was entirely unconnected with any matter to do with that continuing inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for transparent accounting practices. Clear reference was made to that matter in the statement of my right hon. Friend the President, in relation to assurances that he received from Trafalgar House. As to the concerns outlined by the Director General of Electricity Supply, the regulator's representatives were present when those assurances were received. There is continuing dialogue between Trafalgar House and the regulator.
The concerns expressed by the right hon. Gentleman clearly demonstrate his lack of understanding of the marketplace. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade reached his decision entirely in accordance with the interests of the electricity industry.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is not it perfectly sensible that the management of newly privatised companies should be kept on its toes by the threat of takeovers by companies and owners who will bring improved management? Is not efficient management in the direct interest of consumers?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many Opposition Members fail to understand the operation and discipline of the marketplace. It is surprising that so many Opposition Members spend time complaining about the remuneration of senior managers and directors in privatised utilities, and then present the argument that they should be insulated from the pressures of the marketplace.

Mr. Nick Harvey: What was the purpose of the golden share, if the Government treat like any other takeover the first hostile bid for a public utility? The golden share may expire at the end of March, but public interest will not. What advice have the Government received from the regulator? Have not they pulled the rug from under the regulator's feet? What is the Government's assessment of the extent to which the bid is driven by the tax advantages that the bidder thinks will result?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should know that Parliament decided that the golden share would expire in March this year, not continue indefinitely. The purpose was to allow electricity companies time to establish a track record in the marketplace. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to assume that the golden share was to continue indefinitely and that the companies would always be insulated from the prospect of takeovers.
I have little to add to my comments about the regulator. The regulatory concerns outlined by the Director General of Electricity Supply were, in the Government's opinion,

addressed by the assurances received. We are confident that current discussions between the DGES and Trafalgar House will ensure that regulatory concerns are addressed.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that all licence holders, whoever owns them, must abide by their licence obligations?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The requirements placed on licence holders remain entirely unaltered by my right hon. Friend's announcement yesterday.

Mr. Richard Caborn: If anybody in the House shows marked ignorance, it is the Minister. I do not know of any private company that legally has total control over the domestic market, as regional electricity companies have, until 1998. Will the Minister comment on suggestions in the press today that takeovers would change the industry's structure, and that it might revert to the pre-privatisation vertical stream structure—which could be totally in the private sector and foreign owned? Is the Minister saying, on behalf of the President, that the criteria used in the present takeover bid will apply even in the case of money invested from abroad?

Mr. Evans: I am saying that it is the policy of the Government to decide each issue on its merits as it comes to the Department of Trade and Industry to be judged. There is no circumstance in which this is any sort of precedent. Each case must be judged on its merits. The hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, well understands that it is not the case that there is no competition in the market. There is already competition; from 1998 there will be a whole lot more.

Mr. Tim Devlin: How will the assurances from Trafalgar House to the Secretary of State be enforced by the regulator, if they are not kept?

Mr. Evans: The position is that the assurances will be monitored by the regulator himself. The regulator has already indicated, in a statement that he issued yesterday, that he was beginning discussions with Trafalgar House to bring about amendments of the licence to that effect. I am sure, as my hon. Friend knows, that there is power within the Electricity Act 1989, if the regulator so considers, to have a matter referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If insider dealing is found and difficulties arise over prosecution—as happened in the case to which I am unable to refer today—can we then be assured that the law on insider dealing will be reviewed, so that we can have some successful prosecutions?

Mr. Evans: I think that the hon. Gentleman will already be aware of a statement that was made by the Securities and Investments Board in relation to the issue of derivatives lately. I can tell him that, within the sphere of my own responsibilities on the operation of companies law, the issue of derivatives in that area is a matter of on-going examination.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Further to my hon. Friend's earlier answer, can he confirm that, in the event of Trafalgar House breaching its assurances, the Director


General of Electricity Supply can refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the Electricity Act?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very important, in the context of some of the remarks that have been made, to underline the fact that that power resides with the Director General of Electricity Supply.

Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Minister tell me where I and my constituents can buy our electricity other than from Northern Electric? If he cannot, will he admit that it is a monopoly and see it as being different?

Mr. Evans: As the hon. Gentleman should know, for commercial customers there is currently a degree of competition in the market, and from 1998 the Government will ensure that that competition is more widely available, so that the domestic customer is able to take advantage of competition as well.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: If Trafalgar House succeeds in its takeover bid for Northern Electric, will my hon. Friend ensure that the company's capital programme on upgrading and renewing the overhead power lines continues? Reliability of supply is very important, particularly in rural areas, where the cables are subjected to the vagaries of the weather. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the agreement between the regulator and Trafalgar House ensures that Northern Electric will continue to spend that money and upgrade its programme?

Mr. Evans: For my hon. Friend's benefit,, that is one of the specific areas covered by the assurances given by Trafalgar House, and is subject to the discussions to which I referred.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Would the Minister like to reconsider his rather foolish comment that these are just normal companies? How on earth is it not a precedent? Will it not effectively be open season on the other regional electricity companies? What talks has he had with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the implications of the non-decision not to intervene for the two Scottish electricity companies? Does he not understand the anger that would be felt in Scotland if the independence of Scottish Hydro-Electric or Scottish Power were compromised by that foolishness?

Mr. Evans: In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman misses the point concerning the advice given by the Director General of Fair Trading. This is a case in which the Office of Fair Trading, through the director general, is in a position to offer advice to the President of the Board of Trade. Both in the statement that was made yesterday and in the statement that I have made to the House today, it is absolutely clear that the decision that has been reached by the Government is in accordance with that advice: in terms of competition and of the public interest, there were no grounds for the matter to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Moreover, as I have already made clear, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has secured the assurances to which he referred in his statement and to which I have referred today. We have also made it clear that any other bids will be considered by the Department in the usual way.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend find it odd that, having spent the past few weeks

condemning the pay and conditions and professionalism of the boards and management of the regional electricity companies, the Labour party should condemn a proposal to subject them to the professional direction and management of a well-tested international British company? Does not that suggest double standards?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not believe that management or directors should be insulated from the pressures of the market. We believe that the customer's interest needs to be protected, and will be protected, by the terms of the announcement that has been made; but we believe that there should be no insulation beyond that. I am rather surprised—well, perhaps in the circumstances I am not so surprised—that Opposition Members seem to believe in such insulation.

Mr. David Clelland: Is the Minister aware that, at a special meeting in Newcastle this morning, the votes of private and individual shareholders were heavily outnumbered by the proxy votes of the big institutions? Does not that demonstrate that, despite what the Government have said about wider share ownership, the City is still in the driving seat? Given that the Conservative party is very much in the City's pocket and has demonstrated its dislike of regulation, what guarantee have we that the long-term security and interests of the consumer will be considered?

Mr. Evans: As I made clear in my statement, it is now for the shareholders of Northern Electric to decide the issue. The Government do not take a view as between one bidder and another; the shareholders must exercise their judgment in the circumstances. All that is meant by my right hon. Friend's statement is that he has decided in the circumstances—on the basis of advice received from the Director General of Fair Trading relating to both competition and public interest—that there are no grounds for a reference to the MMC.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and recognise the consistency of the advice that he takes from the Director General of Fair Trading. Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that those who own the companies will be subject to the same regulatory regime? Will he also give us an idea of the views of consumers? How will they benefit from the takeover?

Mr. Evans: As I said earlier, the issue of whether the bid proceeds successfully will be a matter for the shareholders. It is not for me, or for the Government, to advise shareholders on whether to accept a bid. I can say, however, that under the Electricity Act individual companies with licences are subject to regulation in the terms of those licences, which are unaffected by today's statement.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Surely the Minister is aware—the question has arisen before—that the taxpayer will lose £223 million because of the bid. The loss of tax revenue could be compounded by takeovers of other companies such as the Yorkshire Electricity Group, Midlands Electricity and perhaps even
London Electricity. It has been one big rip-off. Can it not also be said that Tory party funds will benefit from the Trafalgar House bid?

Mr. Evans: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures, but if he is concerned about a rip-off, let me remind him that since the privatisation of the electricity companies, there has been a steady reduction in the price of electricity. That has been the effect of introducing the disciplines of the market.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As a number of Opposition Members are clearly concerned about the effect on the consumer, will my hon. Friend confirm that, should the merger go ahead, Northern Electric's customers will enjoy a substantial bonus?

Mr. Evans: I understand, because I read about these things along with everyone else, that Northern Electric customers have been offered a certain financial bonus by Trafalgar House. As I said, however, that is entirely a matter for the shareholders to judge, and not a matter on which the Government take a view.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the Minister recognise that other responsibilities exist in relation to the northern region? There are 18,000 shareholders living there who are also consumers. I assume that they have been to the meeting this morning and that they have been outvoted. Those are the people who have an interest in the northern region. Does not he recognise that a social involvement exists in exercises such as this, and that my hon. Friends who live outside the northern region also have an interest in what is happening, because it will happen in their regions?

Mr. Evans: I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the decision that has been made is entirely consistent with the advice offered to the Government by the Director General of Fair Trading. The hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be a preferential voting system, in which one shareholder is entitled to more of the vote than another. I cannot go down that route.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my hon. Friend on accepting the advice that I gave him at Department of Trade and Industry questions last Wednesday. Will he confirm that consumers in the north will receive a bonus of £30 as a result of the takeover, if it goes ahead? Will he also confirm that the institutional investors disliked by the Labour party are the pension funds that guarantee occupational pensions, and the life insurance companies that give decent bonuses to people with with-profits policies? They include the majority of our constituents.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend will recall that, when I responded to him last week, I said that I did not think it wise in the circumstances to comment on his specific advice. I adopt a similar stance in relation to his comment about the bonus to be offered to Northern Electric customers. This is entirely a matter for the shareholders to judge. The role of the Government is to consider whether competition or public interest grounds exist for interfering

in the situation. On the basis of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, we have judged that, in this instance, no such grounds exist.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I do not suppose that the decision has anything to do with the fact that, since 1979, Trafalgar House has contributed £600,000 to Conservative party funds, does it—or am I being naive?

Mr. Evans: I am not sure that anyone, in the circumstances, would accuse the hon. Gentleman of naivety, but he is incorrect.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that consumers throughout the country will be better off if electricity companies get the message that, if they want to defend themselves against unwanted takeovers, they should reduce the price of electricity to their consumers, and the wages being paid to chief executives?

Mr. Evans: It is especially interesting that the first correlation to be drawn in that way comes from the Conservative Benches rather than the Opposition Benches. It sets in context many of the remarks that we have heard from the Opposition Benches in the past few weeks. It is clear that the regional electricity companies cannot be insulated from the disciplines of the marketplace. In this instance, having judged those factors, and having taken into account the advice received, the Government have decided that this particular electricity company cannot be put into an insulated position.

Mr. Jim Cousins: What legal force will the assurances that were given to the President of the Board of Trade have? If those assurances are breached in any particular, will that mean that he will reconsider referring the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Evans: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I presume that he heard the beginning of my statement, so he will recall that I said that the Director General of Electricity Supply has the power to refer the matter in any event—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman please hear me out? The Director General of Electricity Supply has the power to refer the matter under the Electricity Act 1989 should he so wish. In this particular case, he is at this moment engaged in a dialogue with Trafalgar House. If the bid proceeds and if there is subsequently a takeover, the Director General of Electricity Supply will bear those factors in mind if there should be any breach of the assurances. The position adopted by the Government is that to have a statutorily enforceable undertaking beyond the assurances that we have received, would have required a situation in which the Director General of Fair Trading considered that such assurances were necessary. We received no such advice in this case.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the shareholders of Northern Electric have already benefited to a considerable extent, that customers will benefit to a considerable extent from the £30 bonus and that employees will benefit from increased investment by Trafalgar House? Does he agree that as this is the takeover of an electricity company by an engineering company,
there are no competition or public interest issues involved, so my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made absolutely the right decision?

Mr. Evans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments about competition and public interest. I do not think that he would wish me to comment on whether the bid should be successful as that is a matter for the shareholders to decide.

Ms Hilary Armstrong: Does the Minister accept that Northern Electric's customers do not share his colleagues' enthusiasm for the takeover, but regard it with great concern? Does he realise that, having heard him today, they will be even more afraid that the rumour about the propensity of Trafalgar House to asset-strip any firm that it takes over is really what this is all about?

Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. Lady has seen the statement issued yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the precise terms of the assurances received because they deal precisely with the issue that she raised.

Ms Ann Coffey: Will the Minister tell me to whom the regulator will be accountable if at some future date he decides to refer, or not to refer, the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Evans: The regulator is, of course, independent. It is a matter for him to decide in the circumstances whether he wishes to refer the bid. I find it odd to hear concerns raised about the position of the regulator because, as I said, when the assurances were given by Trafalgar House, representatives of the regulator were present.

Personal Statement

Mr. Clive Soley: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short statement. Following the successful defence by The Guardian of a libel action relating to malice in reporting a story about Conservative party funding, I am happy to be able to put the record straight in respect of an intervention that I made on the Floor of the House on 22 June 1993.
On that occasion, I read from a letter sent to me by an Arab whom I had known for many years and who related in his letter an alleged conversation between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Prince Bandar. On the same day, The Guardian had reported that allegation as it tended to confirm other reports that had emanated from an entirely different source. Like The Guardian, I fell that this was an important matter that deserved examination. As far as I am aware, no dishonesty was involved by any party, including none by myself. I was reading from a letter written by someone whom I believed to be acting in good faith, and I was not lying.
I was, however, wrong to name the Secretary of State for two reasons. First, he had just suffered a serious heart attack. Secondly, he could not speak for himself. At that time, I believed that it was the responsibility of the Tory party to respond as the allegation was that money was being paid to the Tory party.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to apologise to the Secretary of State and his family for my insensitivity in relation to his illness at that time arid to put it on record that, although I know the allegations to have been made in good faith, I am now satisfied that neither the Secretary of State nor Prince Bandar was involved in such a conversation. I am also happy to extend my apologies to Prince Bandar.

Sir Norman Fowler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Obviously, it would be wrong to seek to ask questions on a personal statement—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we make no comments following a personal statement. It is received by the House in silence and we then move on to the next business. 'That has been the custom and practice of the House for many years and I intend to uphold that custom and practice.

Land Registers (Scotland)

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make prepayment of the appropriate statutory fees a condition of acceptance of writs for recording in the Register of Sasines and of applications for registration in the Land Register of Scotland.
The Bill is neither controversial nor topical. To those not involved in conveyancing in Scotland, it would not be unfair to describe it as rather dull. However, the minor changes to existing legislation which I wish to introduce in the Bill are important to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland, supported by the Law Society of Scotland, and enjoy all-party support from Scottish parties in the House.
The Bill would enable the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland to move from post-payment to pre-payment of fees for the recording of writs in the register of sasines and for the registration of applications in the land register. It would also provide for the keeper to reject applications for registration in the land register and writs for recording in the register of sasines if those were not accompanied by the appropriate fee. That would be achieved by a short and uncontroversial two-clause Bill.
I do not wish to detain the House by going into great detail about the proposed change. However, it might assist fellow hon. Members, particularly those from south of the border, if I say a few words about Registers of Scotland, the land registration system in place there and the reasons for the proposed change.
In many ways, Registers of Scotland mirrors Her Majesty's Land Registry in England and Wales in being responsible for land registration matters. In Scotland, however, there are two main registers that cover rights and land. The register of sasines dates from the 17th century and records deeds affecting property in Scotland. For more than three centuries, the register of sasines has provided the chief security for title to land in Scotland. It is now being replaced by the land register, which is a state-guaranteed, map-based register of title to land.
The land register became operational in 1981, and Registers of Scotland, in a recent response to the 46th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, has committed itself to completing the extension of the land register to cover the whole of Scotland by no later than 2003. To achieve that challenging extension programme, Registers of Scotland is pursuing a number of initiatives to improve the efficiency of the Department and the service that it provides to its customers. Those initiatives include a move to trading fund status from April 1996, which would bring it into line with HM Land Registry, which has operated as a trading fund since April 1993. Trading fund status will greatly assist Registers of Scotland in planning the necessary finances for extending the land register by giving it additional financial flexibility. Although that will undoubtedly help the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland, the keeper is currently faced with another financial difficulty, which is what my Bill seeks to resolve.
The current system of invoicing customers, who are mainly solicitors, after the work on registration or recording has been completed, is both time consuming

and expensive in pursuing outstanding fees. That has been particularly so in recent years when the level of outstanding fees has risen significantly. Despite a number of attempts to chase up outstanding debts by Registers of Scotland with assistance from the Law Society of Scotland, some £4.7 million in fees was owed at the end of 1994 to Registers of Scotland, of which some £1.9 million or 40 per cent. was outstanding by at least four months. On a turnover of £30 million a year, that level of outstanding debt is considered to be no longer acceptable by the keeper. He is supported in his view by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland.
A move to pre-payment of fees is seen as the solution by all parties. Not only would that deal with the outstanding debt problem, but it would assist the cash flow of Registers of Scotland, enabling it to make savings of about £500,000 per annum on the collection of fees. It would also bring Scotland into line with England and Wales. I emphasise that that would not the effect the level of fees charged by Registers of Scotland. There are, therefore, no adverse cost implications for solicitors or purchasers of property, including house buyers. As a result, the proposed change should not be in any way controversial. The Law Society of Scotland has already confirmed that solicitors are content for the change to be made.
The problem is that the keeper cannot affect that change without existing legislation being amended. Section 6 of the Land Writs Registration (Scotland) Act 1868 provides inter alia that payment of fees for recording writs in the register of sasines should take place after recording. There is no similar restriction in the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, but the keeper would not have the power to reject an application for registration on the land register without an amendment to section 4 of that Act. My Bill therefore provides for the necessary amendments to be made to those two Acts to enable pre-payment and to allow the keeper to reject writs for recording in the register of sasines or applications for registration in the land register when not accompanied by the appropriate fee.
The Bill will also make a minor consequential change by removing the process of notifying that a recorded writ was for ready for delivery in exchange for the fee, which would flow from the change to post-payment to pre-payment.
The Bill is short, non-controversial and narrowly focused, but it important to those concerned. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Phil Gallie and Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.

LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to make prepayment of the appropriate statutory fees a condition of acceptance of writs for recording in the Register of Sasines and of applications for registration in the Land Register of Scotland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 February 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Orders of the Day — Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have not accepted any of the instructions on the Order Paper.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is straightforward; it is to rationalise the Sunday licensing hours for off-licences, pubs and clubs.
The Bill contains sensible measures which I believe will be welcomed by both consumers and the licensed trade. It provides for necessary protection against nuisance and disorder while removing the current unnecessary rules and regulations governing the sale of alcohol on Sundays.
Clause 1 will enable small shops and off-licences to sell alcohol from 10 in the morning until 10.30 at night. This will bring the law governing Sunday off-licence hours into line with the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
Since August last year, large stores and supermarkets have been able to open for up to six hours between 10 in the morning and 6 o'clock in the afternoon; yet they have been able to sell alcohol between midday and 3 o'clock only. That has created the absurd situation in which people shopping in supermarkets on Sunday morning for their lunch can buy as much food as they want but no drink to go with it. The Bill will sweep away that pointless restriction.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Can the hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Bill will have no effect on the Easter Sunday and Christmas day position—that supermarkets are not allowed to open on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday? Will supermarkets be empowered by the Bill to open solely for the sale of alcohol on those days?

Mr. Forsyth: The Bill does not mention the opening of supermarkets. That matter has already been before the House. The Bill provides for removal of the anomaly that related to the sale of alcohol in supermarkets, as I have explained. As a result of the Bill, people will be able to buy alcohol in supermarkets on Sunday in the same way and at the same time as they can buy any other goods.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is right that, in licensing legislation, Easter Sunday and Christmas day have been treated in the same way as normal Sundays.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has not made it clear; he has made two conflicting statements. Does the Bill allow a supermarket to sell alcohol on Easter Sunday when that supermarket is not allowed to sell anything else on Easter Sunday?

Mr. Forsyth: If the supermarket is not open, it is not able to sell anything—either alcohol or goods. I thought that I had made that pretty clear to the right hon. Gentleman.
I now move to on-licensed premises. Pubs and hotels with bars are allowed to open only from noon until 3 pm and from 7 pm until 10.30 pm at the moment. Clause 1 will remove the afternoon break, so that pubs will be able to serve drinks in the bar throughout the period from noon until 10.30 pm.
The Government regard that as a sensible and responsible step. It is more than six years since the Licensing Act 1988 permitted pubs and clubs to open during weekday afternoons. At the time, serious worries were expressed about the adverse consequences that all-day opening might have in terms of increased drunkenness, crime and disorder. However, there has been little increase in drunkenness, nuisance or disorder as a result of the changes, and there seems no reason why things should be different on a Sunday.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister clarify for the House the position in an area such as Dwyfor in my constituency, where licensed premises do not open on Sundays as a result of the local referendum?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me into matters that are outwith my immediate area of responsibility, but I understand the position in respect of Welsh polls to be that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has said that, after 1996, that system will disappear and legislation would be required for that purpose.
The Bill creates an opportunity, where opening does take place on Sundays, for it to be extended. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the scope of the Bill is narrowly drawn to deal with Sunday opening. Although the issue of polls might well be in the scope of the Bill, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he will seek a future legislative opportunity to tackle that matter.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister said in terms that there has been "little" increase in alcoholism or drunkenness because of the operation of the 1988 Act. Will he confirm that, immediately after the 1988 Act, there was such an increase, and that research shows that there has been an increase in heavy drinking following the Act? How little is "little"?

Mr. Forsyth: I should be very interested to see the evidence on which the hon. Gentleman bases his remarks. The advice that is available to me shows that there has been little evidence of the type that he suggests, but I should be happy to consider it. I was making a specific argument in respect of the consequences of all-day opening, but I should be happy to examine that evidence. I am not aware of any strong evidence to support what the hon. Gentleman says. In considering those matters, we need to balance the rights of the majority of people to go about their business exercising responsible choices, and I believe that there should not be legislative barriers in the way of those people unless there is substantial justification for legislation of that type.

Mr. James Couchman: It may be helpful for my right hon. Friend to know that my experience as a licensee when the Licensing Act 1988 came into force


was that the heavier drinking which followed the abolition of the afternoon break on weekdays lasted for approximately a fortnight.

Mr. Forsyth: There we have it from the sharp end. It is predictable that people would perhaps take advantage of the longer opening hours for their novelty value. Speaking as a Member who represents a Scottish constituency, I believe that when liberalisation took place in Scotland it was said that the binge drinking which went on at 10 pm when people tried to "get one more in" before closing time was lessened as a result of the longer opening hours. Those who take a different view cite anecdotal evidence to support their position. However, I am not aware of any general research which shows that giving people more freedom of choice results in their being less responsible.

Mr. Derek Enright: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As a result of supermarkets opening on Sunday, churchgoers have been prevented from parking outside their church by the local council from 9.30 on a Sunday morning for the rest of the day because it is inconvenient for Sainsbury. That is a very odd thing to do. As a result of pubs opening all day on Sunday, parishioners of St. Gerard's in Featherstone, for example, may now be prevented from parking outside their church because it will inconvenience the pub next door.

Mr. Forsyth: Parking arrangements are matters for local authorities to decide. The proposals in the Bill are not related to parking arrangements for motor cars. I start from the position that our legislation should allow people to go about their business freely. It is up to them whether they wish to go to church or to the pub with their families. Unless there are very strong reasons for imposing legislative barriers to their doing so, those barriers should not be put in place. I am afraid that I am not able to help the hon. Gentleman directly with regard to parking arrangements, but I shall happily give way to him again.

Mr. Enright: The Home Secretary, who is sitting next to the Minister, assured us that the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would not have a deleterious effect on churchgoers. I agree that the problems have not resulted directly from any action by the Home Secretary, but will the Minister give an undertaking that he will examine the matter to ensure that churchgoers are not disadvantaged by being unable to park outside their churches as they do now?

Mr. Forsyth: The Bill deals with the opening hours of pubs and other licensed premises. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's churchgoing habits are—I appreciate that there are differences between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England—but most church services begin before 12 o'clock when the pubs will open under the provisions of the Bill; so churchgoers will get there first for the parking spaces. I think that the hon. Gentleman can rest easy on that matter.

Mr. Enright: Not for midday masses.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not know about day masses—the hon. Gentleman is stretching my knowledge. As for his point about supermarkets, as I have already pointed out to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the Bill

does not deal directly with the opening hours of supermarkets, as we have already dealt with that matter. We are concerned about whether it is possible to buy alcohol in supermarkets when they are open. Presumably, parking arrangements will reflect public demand for the other goods that are on sale in supermarkets as well as the availability of alcohol. I hope that that point is clear.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I am sure that the Minister will agree that a radical and significant measure such as this warrants full consultation with the licensed trade and club associations. The largest all-party group in Westminster is the clubs association, whose offices and membership are shared by all political parties. It has direct responsibility for looking to the interests—not protecting the interests—of consumers. There are 8 million members of the Committee of Registered Clubs Associations. They are extremely concerned that no consultation took place. The matter was first announced by the Prime Minister outside the House, rather cavalierly, if I may say so. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that, but, if we mean what we say about consultation, particularly about involving people in such a great industry, it is imperative that consultation should take place. I hope that it is not too late to invite the associations to respond, especially CORCA.

Mr. Forsyth: The Prime Minister made the announcement as part of the Government's general determination to remove unnecessary regulation which inhibits people's choices and opportunities. Most people will welcome that and will welcome the measure. The hon. Gentleman used the description "cavalier". Perhaps Cavalier as opposed to Roundhead might be more appropriate. It may be more a Cavalier measure than a Roundhead measure, and puritans may be concerned about it.
This is a permissive piece of legislation, but nothing in it will compel people in clubs or other organisations to take advantage of it. It is about removing barriers, not imposing requirements, and if clubs feel that it is not appropriate for them to take advantage of the new freedoms that the legislation will provide, they are free not to do so. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's protests about consultation are entirely fair.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will know that in 1993 his Department issued a White Paper on possible changes to the Licensing Act 1988. There was extensive consultation at that time and the bodies to which reference has just been made certainly had an opportunity to respond to the White Paper.

Mr. Forsyth: I was not in the Home Office at the time, but I shall take a risk. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is certainly true that we issued a consultation document, but I am not sure whether the present proposals in respect of Sundays were included.

Mr. Cunliffe: They were not.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman, who follows these matters carefully, tells me that they were not, but I can tell the House that we have had representations on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has responded to those representations and I am sure that the


silent majority up and down the country will welcome the measures. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will rally to support them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who are those large groups of people who have supposedly made a demand to change the law? In all the correspondence and representations that I receive, no one has ever suggested to me that it would be a great idea. Could it be that the Tory party has responded to the fact that the brewers give large sums of money to the Tory party funds, and that the brewers put forward the idea and the Minister is carrying out their wishes?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to notice any demand for anything, unless it is written on placards borne by militants marching towards Hyde park. That is the nature of his politics, but I suggest that he goes back to his constituency and asks people whether they wish to have the opportunity on a Sunday afternoon to take advantage of the new licensing arrangements to allow people to take their children into pubs. If he asks people whether they think it is a sensible measure, he will find that it has considerable support. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should seek to make such a low party political point on a measure that will command support from people of all political persuasions.
Sunday afternoon opening fits in naturally with the other steps which we have taken to relax licensing legislation. Until January, children under 14 were not allowed into public bars. The children's certificates which I have just mentioned will change that. Children under 14 accompanied by an adult will be allowed into those bars that serve meals and that licensing justices consider provide a suitable environment for young children. That should help to encourage family pubs, where parents can enjoy a quiet pint in the company of their children. As Sunday is the day when families often go out together, it makes no sense for pubs offering those facilities to have to close on a Sunday afternoon.
Allowing pubs to open on Sunday afternoons cannot fail to boost tourism. The change will, I am sure, be particularly welcomed by visitors from abroad, to whom the present requirement for pubs to close on Sunday afternoons is simply incomprehensible. I very much hope that the Bill will make rapid progress, so that its benefits can be felt during the summer holiday season.
The relaxation in Sunday hours will also apply to clubs. A club may sell alcohol to its members or their guests in accordance with the club rules if it is registered for that purpose with a magistrates court. Under the present arrangements, the hours during which alcohol may be sold in clubs on Sundays are the same in total as for pubs, and there must be an afternoon break. However, clubs have more flexibility than pubs over the length of the break and the time that they reopen on Sunday afternoons. Clause 2 will remove those somewhat complicated rules for clubs opening on Sundays. In future, they will be able to open from midday until 10.30 pm. Sunday licensing hours for pubs and clubs will be the same, which is already the case on weekdays.
I have outlined what the Bill will permit. I know that people of who live near pubs or clubs may be concerned that Sunday afternoon opening will bring problems of noise, nuisance or even disorder. As I have said, there has been virtually no evidence of such problems since pubs and clubs have been allowed to open during weekday

afternoons. Nevertheless, there must be some remedy available if such problems arise following Sunday afternoon opening. Clause 3 provides that important safeguard.
Licensing justices or magistrates courts will be able to impose restriction orders on pubs or clubs where problems of nuisance or disorder have arisen or are likely to arise. A power to make a restriction order was introduced in the Licensing Act 1988 when the weekday afternoon break was abolished. Its effect is to reimpose all or part of the old afternoon break when afternoon opening had or was likely to give rise to annoyance, disturbance or disorder, and the power will be extended to Sundays.

Mr. Enright: Does that mean that, if the church next to the supermarket that is suffering—and has suffered—disturbance, objects to the sale of alcohol during those periods because it brings more customers, it will be able to appeal under that clause?

Mr. Forsyth: It certainly means that the church will be able to appeal if, as a result of the afternoon opening, there is annoyance, disturbance or disorder. It will permit the police and people who live or work in the vicinity of a pub or club to apply for a restriction order—a church is included in that category. If granted, the order will require the pub or club to close for all or part of the period from 3 pm until 7 pm on Sunday afternoons.
Clause 4 is concerned only with consequential amendments as a result of the changes in clauses 1 to 3 relating to Sunday hours and restriction orders. Clause 5 provides that, following enactment, the Bill will come into force on a date specified by the Secretary of State. That flexibility is needed to allow the Home Office to inform the police, licensing justices and magistrates courts about the changes that the Bill will make. We do not expect there to be any significant interval between Royal Assent and the Act—given that Parliament chooses to support the Bill to that stage—coming into effect.
I believe that Sunday is a special day. For many, it is a family day. Some people choose to go to church, some to play sport and others to have a drink in the pub. It is for individuals—not Government—to make those decisions. The Bill will increase individuals' freedom to choose how they spend their Sundays. It will call time on closing our pubs and clubs on Sunday afternoons. It 'will allow families to spend time together—eating and drinking at the time of their choosing, not the state's. It will ensure that the necessary safeguards exist to protect people from nuisance and disorder. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise with you so soon after I raised a similar point of order with you last Thursday the failure of the Government to make a statement on public sector pay, the failure of the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about changes that I understand he will announce in a press release shortly on the introduction of new restrictive measures that will affect all categories of people seeking permission to remain in Britain, including asylum seekers. It is disgraceful, given the controversy that arose last weekend and this week, that the Home Secretary should not have seen fit to come to the House to make an important statement about matters which are of life and


death importance to many people. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might find it possible to make a statement at 7 o'clock.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman has made his point. He knows full well that it is not a matter for the Chair to judge. It is up to Ministers whether they make statements. Those on the Treasury Bench will be aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that a written question has indeed been answered.

Mr. Madden: That is not good enough: make a statement.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is interfering with the legitimate business now under discussion.

Mr. George Howarth: As has been the custom on such issues, if there is a Division it will be a free vote for the Opposition. Although in the past I have not voted in favour of any measure that encroached on Sunday, I will vote to give the Bill a Second Reading if there is a Division. We have some reservations, however, with which I shall deal later in my speech.
In the mid-1990s, there does not appear to be a great deal of moral heat left in the arguments about Sundays. As recently as 1988, when the Sunday hours were extended by one hour by an amendment in the House of Lords, Lord Ferrers, who was then a Minister in the Home Office, declined to support the amendment. He said that he could not
support even this modest extension of the licensing hours for the simple reason that the Government have made plain their intention to leave Sunday hours unchanged in this Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 1052.]
The heat had gone out of the argument by then, but even at that stage it was clear that the Government were not entirely comfortable with exactly how those changes were proceeding.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As a veteran of the 1988 Licensing Bill, I can tell my hon. Friend that the facts were that throughout the Second Reading debate and proceedings in the Standing Committee, the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), gave repeated assurances that there would be no change to the Sunday hours. The gloss on what the Minister now says is that the Government did not support the change when it was made in another place and nor did they oppose it. They did not oppose it, notwithstanding the many assurances that had been given during the passage of the Bill through the House.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the gloss that he has added to what I was saying.
The arrangements for Sunday licensing have in the past been far more hotly contested and controversial. For example, in Wales in the recent past—the Minister referred briefly to it in his speech—the issue was not

always so straightforward because there were various referenda, or referendums as we are now told they are to be called.

Mr. Enright: Referenda—my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Howarth: There is controversy even on the name of that subject, never mind the execution of it.
I have an extract from a House of Lords debate on alcoholic drink as long ago as 1968. I noted an exchange between Lord Maelor and Baroness Phillips. Lord Maelor had asked about the conduct of the referendum that had been held. His response to the answer was:
I thank my noble friend for her reply. I am not quite satisfied with the answer because I can give her facts and figures … Is my noble friend aware that in Denbigh there were 470 spoiled votes, and that in fact 1,500 were technically spoiled, except that the presiding officer could presume to know what was the intention of the voter. I must say that I am not surprised. I have here a copy of the ballot paper."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 1968; Vol. 297, c. 846.]
The whole debate then proceeded into chaos. Even at that stage, the question of holding referendums on the subject generated a great deal of heat.
The position in Wales created a series of anomalies. I have an extract from The Times of 6 November 1989. The article is headed:
Forecasts of a wetter Wales".
In my experience, it is often just that. On the question of some counties being wet and some dry, the article stated:
To see the consequences this produced you need to stand on a humped bridge over the River Teifi. Behind you is Nellie Griffith's Red Cow. It is shut because it stands on the Cardigan side of the border. By noon a steady stream of young men—many of them the Red Cow's mid-week regulars—has crossed the bridge to drink in the dozen public houses strung through the streets of Newcastle Emlyn, which is in liberal Carmarthen. Nellie Red Cow (locals will call her nothing else) is 75 and has lived in the house since infancy. 'It is not the little bit of lost business that makes me so angry,' she explains, 'it is injustice. The good Lord knows that we are not bad people over here. Peaceful on Sunday? I don't have swearing or fighting any day.
That sums up the problems and the anomalies.
Serious issues remain that should be discussed in the debate. In view of those anomalies, it was necessary to have some change. Broadly speaking, there is widespread support for a further relaxation of Sunday hours. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members have also received representations from the Consumers Association. It states:
From surveys of CA members and the public at large, it is clear that present restrictions are inconvenient and that greater flexibility in opening hours will meet with widespread approval.
It then states some reservations, which could be appropriately raised at a later stage of the Bill.
I have also received representations from the Campaign for Real Ale, which also supports the Bill. I suppose that it represents the serious drinking end of the market. Nevertheless, its support should be taken into account.
As patterns of social life and working life have changed over the years, Sunday has become a day of leisure for most people rather than specifically a day of worship, as some might have maintained 30 or even 20 years ago. Many people—me included—are able to combine both. It is quite possible, as the Minister hinted, to go to church in the morning and to a pub, club or restaurant in the afternoon, and many families do just that.
Yesterday, I spoke to the Bishop of Liverpool, David Sheppard, who is also chairman of the board for social responsibility of the Church of England. He said that although he personally regretted the cultural changes associated with what is permissible on a Sunday, he still did not feel it necessary to take a strong line in opposition to the Bill.
Despite the fact that I shall support the Bill, I should record some of the reservations that people have about it—in addition to those already expressed by some of my hon. Friends. I agree, for instance, with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe). Even before the Bill goes into Committee, there is a case for further consultation with some of the organisations—[Interruption.] It would be nice if the Minister bothered to listen to what I am saying. If sensible changes to the Bill can be made later, I am sure that my hon. Friends will be willing to propose them.

Mr. Donald Anderson: There has apparently already been some consultation with the brewers, even if the Government did not think it worth while discussing the matter with club representatives or licensed trade representatives.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I urge the Minister to hold meaningful consultation on all these points.
To continue my list of reservations: I have with me a Home Office press release published on 3 January and entitled
Pubs to Offer a Family Welcome".
It states:
Landlords will be able to welcome families with children into their bars early in the New Year, Home Secretary Michael Howard announced today. Licensees will be able to apply for children's certificates from January 3rd, in time for the major licensing session round in February. The certificates will, for the first time, allow accompanied children under 14 into suitable pub bars where food and soft drinks are served.
I welcome that announcement, but I fear that all too often pub and club facilities are not family friendly. They are frequently gloomy places that make no concession to families and have no facilities for children. Speaking as the parent of three young children, I am well aware of the changes that need to be made.
I trust that the certificate procedure will not stop there, and that licensees, breweries and club organisations will be encouraged to carry on the process of making licensed premises more family friendly. If we are serious about Sunday being a day of leisure, such facilities are very necessary ingredients.
I should like also to put the point of view of those who work in the licensed trade, referring, if I may, to points made by the Transport and General Workers union, the major trade union active in this area. It has five points to make:
(i) For any worker not currently working on a Sunday, the decision to do so should be entirely voluntary. Workers should be protected from any disciplinary action or discrimination for refusing to do so.
The same points were made in respect of Sunday trading; with slight modification, they hold good in this case.
(ii) Where a worker already works on a Sunday, any extension of their working hours should also be entirely voluntary and, again, workers should be protected from any disciplinary action or intimidation for refusing to work extended hours. (iii) Any workers who volunteer to work on Sunday, or to work extended hours, should be entitled to enhanced pay based on a minimum of double

time. (iv) (iii) above should apply to all workers, whether they be employed for the sole purpose of working on Sunday or in a peripheral activity relating to the business.
(v) Any legislation in this matter should have universal application and be incorporated into the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act.
We may not be given full answers to those points, but they should be taken into account.
It may surprise one or two of my hon. Friends, but I have been lobbied by the British Casino Association, and I promised to put one of its points on record without any commitment by us. It wrote:
Whilst the British Casino Association welcomes the further de-regulation of licensing hours under this Bill, this is in stark contrast with the current situation for casinos. Unlike other types of club, some casinos licensed for gaming may supply liquor after 10.30 pm and none may do so after midnight, even though gaming can continue until 4 am in the morning. This is an unforseen side effect of the ban on live entertainment in casinos by regulation under the 1968 Gaming Act, which means that no casino can apply for an 'extended hours order' or for a 'special hours certificate' under Sections 70 and 76 respectively of the Licensing Act 1964.
The Minister mentioned tourism. The association argues that the restriction affects the tourist industry.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Casinos are outside the scope of the Bill, but, as part of the deregulation exercise that produced this child, we are considering casinos and proposals will be forthcoming. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's views on that and other areas where there may be scope for deregulation. I have some sympathy with the association's point on the inability of casinos to sell alcohol after a particular time in the evening. That anomaly is under consideration.

Mr. Howarth: I hasten to add that I was not pressing that case but merely flagging it. We do not take a particular position on that aspect.

Mr. Enright: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: Certainly.

Mr. Enright: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend because it is most irritating to be interrupted from behind. This seems to be the thin end of the wedge. Will deregulation be extended to racing? Will Pontefract be flooded with race meetings, charming though they are? Will there be further gambling in our pubs, with more gaming machines being installed? That seems the direction in which the Government are moving. I hope that my hon. Friend will impress on the Minister the need to put some stop to these damned proposals.

Mr. Howarth: It is never irritating to be interrupted by my hon. Friend, whose useful points are always well made. Horse racing is already permitted six Sundays a year. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I understand that further proposals relating to gaming machines are on their way. Mammon is already at the door.
On balance, and subject to the reservations that I expressed, I will support the Bill's Second Reading. I hope that the issues raised by my hon. Friends and me will be addressed in detail as the Bill progresses. We have serious reservations and want them addressed before the measure reaches the statute book.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak early in the debate. I will not detain the House long. I declare an interest, as the Register shows, as joint licensee with my wife of Eoderton hall, which is a hotel and restaurant near Welshpool in Wales. We hold a full licence, so I have experience of the operation of licensing laws. I am also honorary president of the catering industry's liaison council, a trade body in which the industry tries to put forward its views.
I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I believe that it has come out of the Government's Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, and for that we should be grateful. I hope that there will be much more deregulation. My hon. Friend the Minister was right to agree that the Bill is one of the early benefits to come from that legislation.
When all-day drinking was introduced, we were led to believe that it would be a disaster. We heard, when the Minister was introducing the subject, that it would be a two-week wonder in certain establishments. It probably lasted that long in my part of the world. There were not the disasters that were forecast. The public were responsible and they could be trusted. In many areas, that piece of legislation was not used. The pubs and hotels had a choice whether to open all day, if they wished. The same is true of the proposed legislation. It does not force people to open.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend might like to know that a number of establishments did indeed try all-day opening on weekdays, as a result of the Licensing Act 1988, found that it was not to their benefit or that of their customers and exercised their choice not to open. I am sure that the same will happen with the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill.

Mr. Hawksley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the wisdom of giving the licensees and the public the opportunity to show that there is a demand for the services that are offered.
I look at the Bill as a correction to an anomaly in many ways, because if one thinks of an hotel in a tourist area, or even an off-licence—I think of my part of the country, where the hotel is, and of the many campers and caravaners who visit the area—one will realise how stupid the present law is. Think of the scene in our local supermarket, which is small and is open on a Sunday—it has been for some time—and which has an off-licence. Imagine a member of the staff trying to explain to a foreign tourist why, at five past three, he or she cannot buy a bottle of wine to take back to the caravan, whereas 10 minutes earlier they were allowed to buy a bottle or a can of beer. It is absolute folly. Even if the tourist understood what was being said—with all due respect, somebody speaking in a Welsh accent to a foreign visitor who hardly speaks any English may have some problems—he or she looks at us as though we are mad. I believe that it highlights the folly of the present situation.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the hon. Gentleman, when he and his wife go on holiday to Spain, look at a

Spaniard as though he were mad when the Spaniard tries to explain to him about a siesta, saints' days or the traditions of that country?

Mr. Hawksley: I have never been to Spain and nor has my wife, so that creates a slight problem. I will, perhaps, put it in the context of visits that I have made to France. I never seem to have any problems getting myself a drink in a French establishment whenever I have wanted one, whether or not it was on a Sunday.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I have seen in my local supermarket on a Sunday, where many retired people and students work, customers abusing and being extremely rude to supermarket staff who are trying to close the section where alcoholic drinks are sold. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is sensible, because it will free up and remove that aggression from society which is absolutely unnecessary?

Mr. Hawksley: I have never witnessed that problem, but I can understand it happening and have been told many times that people who serve drinks up until the 3 o'clock deadline have problems when they have closed and people come in and expect to be served. They just do not understand and cannot believe that, in this country and in this day and age, when we have legislated for Sunday trading, we are pursuing that particular policy.

Mr. Beith: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too carried away talking about foreign tourists, he might reflect that if those tourists come from Norway and Sweden—as many visitors to my constituency do—they will be quite surprised to discover that they can buy alcohol from an off-licence rather than from a Government monopoly, and indeed that they can buy it at weekends at all.

Mr. Hawksley: I am glad that plenty of tourists visit the right hon. Gentleman's part of the country. The tourist industry is important, and the Bill goes a long way to help it by offering the facilities that are expected by many tourists, if not those from Norway.
I want to deal with two aspects of the Bill in detail. First, why do we go only halfway? Why do we not bring Sunday hours into line with weekday hours? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) about supermarkets could also cause a slight problem in pubs and off-licences: local residents may be surprised to find that they shut at 10.30 pm rather than 11 pm on Sundays. I hope that the Committee will seriously consider extending opening time by, at any rate, that half hour at the end of the day, because if the same hours do not operate throughout the week people may be confused. I question the advantage of the hours specified in the Bill; indeed, I suggest that there are no advantages.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Did my hon. Friend's suggestion that pub opening hours should be brought into line with weekday hours apply both to the extra half hour at the end of the day and to morning opening?

Mr. Hawksley: I would prefer to alter the hours at both ends. I appreciate that the Church might object on the grounds that services are still going on at that time of the morning, so I deliberately avoided making the suggestion, but I support the principle. I suspect that, in any event,


pubs in areas where many people go to church would not want to open until the service was over, as few people would visit the pub at that time.
My second point concerns clause 3, which deals with restriction orders. I understand the reasons for the orders, which are similar to those in the legislation allowing all-day drinking. I gather that they are intended to deal with possible problems of nuisance, but I question—with some trepidation, as my own licence comes up for renewal at this time of year—whether we should give magistrates any discretion. I am concerned about the way in which they use that discretion in many cases.
Let me give three examples to show that giving magistrates the power to respond as they wish may result in distortions across the country. Their interpretation of legislation often varies from one area to another, and often does not correspond with what we intended when we introduced the legislation. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that the safeguard lies in the Crown court. Few licensees will be willing to employ lawyers and challenge a magistrate's decision in the Crown court: the process is very expensive for individual licensees.
I know of a court which—under the present system, which enables courts to allow extensions on Sunday afternoons—automatically refuses to allow such extensions, on "special occasion" grounds, to christenings. The court has put its reason in writing: it says that children attend christenings. It is indeed quite likely that there will be children at a christening, but surely a christening is a special occasion. If magistrates say no in one part of the country and yes in another, the discretion that they are given will cause a problem.
My second example relates, I admit, to an application that I made on behalf of a local football club. It was rejected. It was the first time that the Montgomery football club had won the cup—a local cup, I add hurriedly, before anyone forms too high an opinion of what was won. It was by far the greatest day of the club's life, and its members decided to hold a celebratory dinner at the hotel that I own.
When we applied to the magistrates, they said, "That is not a special occasion. You must finish at 11 pm." In fact, as a meal was served, we were able to give members of the club slightly more time in which to drink; but if we had been in the west midlands nearly every magistrates' bench would have allowed a much longer extension.
I hope that the Minister will respond in detail to my third example, as I consider it the most serious. If he cannot do so today, perhaps he will do so in writing. We have talked a good deal about the children's certificates that have already been granted under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which have been welcomed by most people as a step forward. I am worried, however. The intention of Parliament and the Minister when the legislation was introduced, as paragraph 12 of the guidelines states, was that the certificates
should be introduced with the least alteration to the normal operation of pubs concerned".
That is fair enough. We did not want too much of an upheaval, and if someone wanted to apply for a children's certificate that was fine. Now, however, we are noticing inconsistencies. In Devon and Cambridge, for instance, licensees are being told that no smoking should be allowed. Parliament did not ask for, or insist on, such a condition. I suppose that on Friday, when we debate the

Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) Bill, Parliament will decide whether to legislate in that important regard; but magistrates are currently taking it on themselves to make it a condition of a pub's certificate that there be no smoking in that pub or in the area to which its certificate relates. I accept that that decision could be challenged in the courts, but that would be expensive.
I am even more concerned by my discovery that the Health Education Authority, a publicly funded body, is writing to magistrates and persuading others to do so. It writes:
Magistrates can attach such conditions to these certificates as they consider fit.
It asks magistrates to make the no-smoking rule a condition of children's certificates.
We can argue about whether that is right, but I feel that such important decisions should depend on what happens in the House on Friday rather than being left to magistrates. I am particularly worried about the possibility of inconsistency throughout the country: some magistrates will think that the law should be applied as the House intended, while others will go further and try to apply it as they wish it to be applied.

Mr. Couchman: Hon. Members on both sides of the House said at the time of that change in the law last year that they hoped that magistrates would not attach unreasonable conditions to children's certificates. Examples of unreasonable conditions have occurred in Scotland, where children's certificates have been the order of the day for longer than in England and Wales. It was suggested, for example, that high chairs and children's special toilets should be provided. Such conditions are unreasonable. My hon. Friend's comment about pubs that have smoke-free areas and that seek children's certificates are in the same sort of league.

Mr. Hawksley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Some magistrates are imposing the condition that nappy-changing facilities must be provided in both male and female toilets. Parliament never intended that such conditions should be put in place. I am concerned, therefore, that we should not allow magistrates to have discretion, unless we are sure that they will use it wisely.
My hon. Friend's point about Scotland is fair. I gather that, in many parts of Scotland, because of the conditions that are being laid down, quite a few people are not applying for children's certificates. Few applications are being made in some of the larger cities. The reason is not that the licensee does not want children in his premises, or that the public do not want that. It is that licensees know that magistrates will impose conditions that are totally unacceptable to them.
In his winding-up speech, the Minister should deal with the question of magistrates' discretion, which is being abused in the case of children's certificates. Magistrates should trade in their prejudices. I hope that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading tonight, as I believe it will, the Committee will consider in detail the question of magistrates' discretion as outlined in clause 3. It is wrong that the personal prejudices of magistrates should, in any way, be reflected in the discretion that Parliament gives them. In supporting the Bill, I hope that the Committee will consider that important point. I look forward to supporting the Bill in the Division Lobby if necessary.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Magistrates are not exercising personal prejudice if, in taking into account the appropriate conditions for a children's certificate, they have regard to whether conditions in a room pose a danger to children's health. Now that we know the consequences of passive smoking, that would be the case.
I insist that the Liberal Democrat party regards this matter as a free-vote issue, as do the other parties. Hon. Members will no doubt have different views about it. High politics is involved in the issue. After all, the Prime Minister chose to make it the subject of a key announcement in a major speech on 24 January at the Inter-Continental hotel.
I remember the degree of press interest during the early part of the evening, and the number of requests that I had to comment, because Downing street was guiding the press into thinking that a major announcement was to be made. Sure enough, what was that important announcement about? It was about Sunday afternoon licensing. Clearly, therefore, either the Government regard that as a matter of the highest political import, or the Prime Minister was stuck for something favourable to say in one of his many difficult weeks recently.
The Government had a desire to rush the Bill through, possibly taking all its stages in one day. I am glad that they thought better of that idea, and that they are making arrangements to ensure that the Bill is considered properly and in detail. For the Government, the Bill completes an agenda of making Sunday like any other day of the week, but we have not yet assessed the impact of last year's changes in Sunday trading.
We have not seen the effect of those changes, or tested the various propositions that were made about the Sunday Trading Act 1994, partly because, before Christmas, we went through a period that was not unlike the previous Christmas, when so many large retail chains broke the law. Since Christmas, the recession has still been biting fairly deeply. Many city centre retail chains have no great disposition to stay open extensively on Sunday. The Act may be put to the test only in the warmer weather as we approach the season when retail chains must attract more people. We have not yet assessed the Bill's impact, yet the measure will add to it.
The measure is not being taken as part of a general review of licensing and licensing powers. Some of the Bill's supporters, including the Consumers Association, have spoken about the way in which the licensing system now works. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) spoke about that, too. Some of the instructions tabled were on that subject. I am not yet persuaded by their arguments. I am still happy for magistrates to exercise discretion and to receive advice from the police on disorder problems that they might expect, or difficulties that are associated with particular licensed premises.
Some people argue that this matter should be dealt with by the planning system, which is more a appropriate system through which to decide whether a premise's long opening hours are an intrusion, for example, on a residential area. It might have been more appropriate, therefore, to consider the extensions as part of a general review of licensing legislation, especially as the Bill effectively gives magistrates important discretion to

reimpose the existing Sunday afternoon closing periods if, in their view, it is necessary for reasons of disorder or anything of that sort.
It is not clear from reading the Bill whether the restriction order that magistrates impose will be peculiar to one set of premises, or to several sets of premises in a given area, but that is an important discretion. The Minister has attached importance to it. Again, it makes one think that the matter should be considered in the context of a more general review of how the licensing laws work.
Perhaps the most important problem in relation to the Bill, and the biggest anxiety that I have about it, is its total lack of staff protection. Last year, the Government were forced to include protection for staff in the Sunday trading legislation because of pressure from hon. Members. To many of us, however, that protection was inadequate. In the main, the protection was for existing staff. The Bill, however, contains no element of protection for people who are in a demanding trade and whose ability to have time with their families on Sunday afternoons is being taken away.
I think especially of the effect on licensed house managers and pub staff, but the matter also affects quite a lot of licensees. Some licensees are in favour of the change; others are against it. It will, however, have a powerful effect on the family life of people who cannot afford to employ someone else to do their job on Sunday afternoons. They will lose trade if other premises stay open for the whole afternoon and people choose to go there rather than to a pub that will close.
Peter Love, general secretary of the National Association of Licensed House Managers, said:
This government seems intent on introducing Sunday opening without any consultation.
The inclusion of Christmas day and Good Friday in these proposals further destroys the family and social life of public house managers.
No protection exists for people who work in the licensed trade. Their freedom is at stake. The Minister sought to cast the Bill in terms of the freedom that it would give to people. Whenever he does that, however, he ignores the freedom of people who work in the trade to have some time on Sundays with their families and to themselves. He offers them no assistance in securing that time.
I shall declare a small interest as someone who contributes regularly to the Clubs Journal. My impression is that not much call exists for the change among traditional clubs, but that some of them will feel pressured into Sunday afternoon opening in order not to lose customers to pubs. The Minister said that the Bill would "call time" on Sunday afternoon closures, but what if premises do not want to open and are pressured into doing so because of the competition?
People responsible for the management of a club have to have regard to its viability. That has been difficult to sustain, especially during the long period of recession. Clubs will not necessarily be able to gamble that they can keep their present trade if pubs in the immediate vicinity open for longer periods. There may not be much choice for them.
One prominent leader of the club movement said to me:
I don't believe our members will want this. It goes against our tradition of supporting families.


Generally, I do not detect in the club movement any desire for a change of this sort.
Greater pressure for change exists in the retail trade and especially among the supermarket chains. I sought to establish from the Minister what precisely was the position with Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. I am still not sure that that has been made clear. What happens about Easter Sundays?
There should be no doubt that the recent Sunday trading legislation does not allow for large supermarkets to open on Easter Sundays or Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. The Bill appears to remove the constraint on the selling of alcohol on those days, but it is not clear how the two pieces of legislation are to interact. It might be possible for a new anomaly to be created deliberately in an attempt to drive another wedge into the law. Some supermarkets might open for the permitted alcohol sales period but then claim that there is an anomaly because their customers can buy alcohol but not groceries. One can imagine the exercise in which they will then become engaged—the very reverse of what they did before. Supermarkets are experienced in public relations and are adept at pursuing their own interests, so let us make it clear that the exemptions applicable when Christmas day falls on a Sunday and on Easter Sunday are to remain.

Mr. Couchman: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we were on opposite sides of the Sunday trading argument, but that we were in the same Lobby when debating Christmas day and Easter. I would be equally unhappy if the Bill were used as a wedge to enable supermarkets to open on Christmas day or on Easter Sunday.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He reflects the views of many hon. Members who favoured more general opening on Sundays but wanted to afford special protection to those two days. However, that leads me to ask why pub Sunday opening hours on Christmas day and Good Friday are included in the Bill.
Christmas day strikes me as especially difficult for those who work in the licensed trade. We should remember that, for licensees and pub managers, the pub is their home. Their only chance of having some peace on Christmas day to enjoy with their families is when the doors are closed and the customers have gone to their own Christmas dinners. They can then have a little peace and quiet in the place which is their place of work and their home. I am surprised that the Government have hooked Christmas day into this exercise, which is supposedly about Sundays. We should consider during the Bill's later stages whether to take Christmas day out of the Bill.
I have already mentioned the discretion afforded to magistrates. It is important that we know how clause 3 will work and in what circumstances the Government envisage that magistrates will place restriction orders and reimpose Sunday closing. For example, will those circumstances extend to circumstances in which people who live near pubs experience a great deal of disturbance on Sunday afternoons? I am not talking about real disorder.
The Minister made it clear that if there is persistent disorder as a result of Sunday afternoon opening in a particular locality, he would expect it to be brought to the attention of magistrates and for them to take it seriously. However, most people experience milder disturbance. Some pubs are situated in residential areas. As happens

with Sunday trading, the Bill could mean cars coming and going and doors banging all afternoon. Residents would lose the peace that they want on a Sunday afternoon and some of their liberty would be lost. Will the magistrates' powers be interpreted strictly to cover gross abuse of the Sunday opening provisions, or will they take into account what is perhaps more of a planning argument about whether it is appropriate that a particular activity should continue at all hours of the day and night in a residential area?
The Bill has support from various quarters. It is supported by the Campaign for Real Ale, the Consumers Association, brewers and some people in the tourist trade. It is a limited addition to the changes already made, but I do not detect a great groundswell of opinion among people who feel that this is an important step that should be taken now. The desire to rush the Bill through without proper consultation and without its being examined in the context of licensing law more generally could lead to our passing inappropriate legislation. I do not believe that it has been the subject of adequate consultation. It could have been dealt with much better as part of a wider review. That is the advice that I offer to hon. Members as they consider it now.

Mr. James Couchman: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Before doing so, I should like to declare a residual interest in the licensed trade. Until 31 October last year, my family had been involved in the trade for 100 years. Until that point, I and my wife ran a small family company operating seven public houses in London, of which I was the joint licensee with my managers. On 31 October, my family's public house operating company was disposed of to another small company. Thus, my very long direct connection with the trade came to an end. I remain for one year, and for one year only, a non-executive director of that company, so I have a vestigial interest.
I was recently elected vice-chairman of the parliamentary beer club which now has, I think, 160 members and may be rivalling the clubs all-party group for the title of largest group in the House. It is, of course, a non-remunerated position, and Madam Speaker is our president.
I shall retain my interest in this important sector of the leisure industry. I must disagree a little with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) about magistrates. After 25 years of appearing in magistrates courts for licence changes, transfers and brewster sessions, I have no quibble with the way in which magistrates go about their interests. In that connection, I should add that my wife has served as a magistrate for slightly longer than I have served in the House, so hon. Members will understand my reason for agreeing with magistrates.

Mr. Hawksley: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are inconsistencies in magistrates' decisions and that it can create problems when different benches make different decisions, especially as the House believed that it was legislating in a particular way?

Mr. Couchman: I do not disagree with that, because we allow magistrates a degree of latitude and flexibility in the way in which they go about their business. Different


licensing benches will be mindful of the different conditions in their areas. It is a difficult issue but we do not want the magistracy to become a rubber stamp. We must therefore allow magistrates to exercise their duties as they see fit. However, perhaps the Home Office could issue guidance in respect of the vexed question of whether the issuing of children's certificates is being constrained by magistrates exercising their discretion in a perverse way. I shall not say too much more about that, but it is worthy of consideration in Committee.
In response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), let me say that I do not agree that there is any relation between the Bill and last year's Sunday trading legislation, except in so far as supermarkets are affected. Clearly, an anomaly was created last year when supermarkets were allowed to open for six hours between 10 am and 4 pm on Sundays, although their off-license sections were restricted to opening between noon and 3 pm.
We have lately heard a good deal about the problems confronting the pub trade and off-licenses, especially in respect of the damage being done by the legal importation of duty-paid beer, wines and spirits and illicit liquor sales by bootleggers. There is no doubt that some of the latter trade seems to be organised by gangs of criminal who are driving a coach and horses through the single market provisions, bringing in large quantities of duty-paid liquor from France where the duty is much lower.

Mr. Enright: Is not more harm done to the licensed trade by its own practice of making huge profits on soft drinks sold in pubs than by the illicit importation of drinks?

Mr. Couchman: If the hon. Gentleman had come into one of my pubs last year and ordered a pint of beer, he would have enjoyed certain facilities, service and the appointment of the premises. If he entered that pub and bought an orange juice or a lemonade, he would enjoy precisely the same facilities. Pubs sell not only drinks but a service that involves the sale of a drink. Indeed, the retail profit made on the sale of orange or tomato juice is not unreasonable when compared with the profit on a pint of beer. Opposition Members have always got that wrong. I accept that when soft drinks are purchased in an off-licence, there is room for lower prices, but it is different where the on-licensee must take into account the provision of his services and the payment of rents, which have risen tremendously in recent years.
I was discussing the importation of duty-paid liquor and bootlegging activities. Last week, Customs and Excise gave the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, figures to April 1994 in volume 12 of the 1993–94 appropriation accounts, paragraphs 24–30. They suggest that the Treasury receipts on alcohol and tobacco during 1993–94 fell short by some £200 million compared with the figures for 1992–93, which were already short by a fair margin. We can only estimate the extent of illegal bootlegging, but it may account for a further shortfall of some £35 million. The loss to the retail trade will be several times that sum and may reach as much as £1 billion. That is a huge loss of retail trade to the on-licence and off-licence trade.
There is a tendency to blame that serious blow to profits and jobs in the industry on my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His perverse refusal to narrow the gap between United Kingdom and particularly French rates of duty has contributed to the continuing recession in the licensed trade and it will be a long time before he is forgiven for his change of heart between the November and December 1994 Budgets. However, I believe that the reasons for the continuing mediocre trade, particularly in London and the south-east, are far more complex than simply a loss of trade caused by the importation of liquor from France.
Drinking habits have changed, even in the 25 years that I have been involved with the public house trade. Let me offer a few examples of why our nation now drinks less. Lunchtime drinking—the traditional pint and a sandwich or shepherd's pie—is now frowned on by many employers, who are intent on getting the same level of concentration in the afternoon as in the morning. Many Irish workers in the building industry who went home during the recession now return to find that health and safety rule supreme on the building site, and any hint of drinking will lead to instant dismissal. No one can disagree with that on safety grounds, but building workers have traditionally been an important source of income to the publican.
Another example of that practice which, again, one fully understands, is British Rail's setting of a zero limit for its random breath testing of all grades of staff, day or night. Effectively, that means that British Rail employees cannot drink at any time of the working week because of the time that it takes for the body to discharge alcohol. The pub probably no longer represents the warm and comfortable haven from unwelcoming homes that it did in the past. That is certainly the case for many of our citizens. Contrary to the lager lout image of the minority, young people are much less inclined to drink, particularly when driving, than, dare I say, their parents. If they go to all-night raves, they accompany the illicit substances that they take with water, not alcohol.
The recession has been bad for pubs and the recovery is still elusive for most of them. Pessimists, and I include myself, doubt whether the trade will ever recapture the good days of the mid-1970s and late-1980s. Small traditional pubs in a secondary position, for which catering is unlikely to he more than a small part of their business, have been particularly hard hit by the recession and the fact that strong, usually brewery-managed catering pubs offer much greater facilities.
Pubs for which catering is a major part of their business can already open during Sunday afternoons. As a result of the 1988 Act, it became possible for pubs that provide substantial food to continue to serve food and drink throughout the afternoon break. That led to an unlevel playing field because small, traditional pubs for which food was a much smaller part of their business and which provided much simpler food did not qualify. That alone is a good reason why the House should give the Bill a Second Reading today.
Pubs that cannot open on Sunday afternoons are prevented from showing their customers football matches on BSkyB on Sunday afternoons. Many people would like to stay in the pub to watch such matches on television on Sunday afternoons. I agree with the wise words that appeared in The Licensee and Morning Advertiser, the


trade paper, on 2 February this year. Mr. Terry Oates, president of the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations, said:
To show Sky TV, landlords have to pay an extra charge compared to residential users. At the moment Sunday hours require them to close when its main attraction, football coverage, begins.
The government, along with the federation, is trying to make visiting a pub more family-orientated. Relaxing Sunday hours would allow better trading on what is seen as a day for families.
Mr. Oates has got that right.
It is interesting to note that all-day opening will not be compulsory, according to Mr. Oates—he seems to know—and he will not open all day. However, many members of his federation have wanted all-day opening for some time and have been urging the Government to make those changes for the past 18 months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge said, that will be particularly important for pubs in tourist areas.
The Bill will act as a lifeline for small, traditional British pubs and I shall certainly support it in the Lobby. So long as the landlord, whether or not he is a brewer, is not allowed to insist on Sunday afternoon opening and resists the temptation to increase rents in recognition of a supposed new trading opportunity, as the jargon goes, Sundays may once again become a good trading day for traditional pubs. I am sure that few hon. Members, whatever their feelings about drink and drinking, would welcome the death of the British public house, which is unique in the world.
As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister speak to the British Retail Consortium on 24 January and announce his intention to introduce the Bill swiftly, I thought back to my days in a large south London pub, with a disco and functions suite, which I managed for four years. I remembered just how precious was the Sunday afternoon break as an assured break once a week and wondered whether I should support the Bill, but then I remembered how good trade was at that time, even without Sunday opening.
The House should not stand between a publican and his customers during Sunday afternoons. If I have a complaint, it is that opening time will remain at noon because the best advantage that small, traditional pubs could gain in changing to Sunday hours would be to bring forward opening times from noon to 11 o'clock. My suggestion will no doubt bring howls of derision from certain Opposition Members and will be fought by those who still see that as a conflict with church-going.
However, people who go to those small pubs frequently go home for lunch, so they will not derive great benefits from the proposed opening hours. They would have derived greater benefit from an earlier opening time that made the 11 o'clock opening standard throughout the week. I recognise that that will have to wait and that those darts club committee meetings that are scheduled to start at 11 am on a Sunday will have to wait some time before they are legitimised.
Since I came to the House in 1983, we have had many debates on our obsolete licensing laws. In common with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I am a veteran of the Licensing Act 1988. I made one of my first major speeches during the debate on the Consolidated Fund at Christmas 1983, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and I debated our licensing laws at some length at 7 o'clock in the

morning. We both decided that our time would probably have been better spent down in one of the early houses at Smithfield market.
Since 1983, I have taken part in most of the debates on our licensing law and the Bill is at least the third piecemeal reform of it since then. Today, we should be discussing a more radical change in the law, for example, a later terminal hour for Fridays and Saturdays, which is one of the trade's great requirements and on which it has been consulted, and the question of dual licensing. In that case, people who manage a pub might have a licence of one type whereas the premises could be subject to another type of licence. Should a licensee disappear all of a sudden, that would avoid an immediate crisis over the licence of the premises.
Like Terry Oates, I welcome the Bill, however limited it is. British pubs are still in grave danger and it behoves the House to support them. That support is offered by the Bill.
To those who think that the Bill is another step on the road to damnation, let me assure them that, in the past, we were told just that not only by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), but by Lord Braine, then my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. He was apoplectic at the prospect of doing away with the afternoon break during week days. Of course he was proved wrong, as was the hon. Member for Swansea, East, because a more civilised drinking pattern has followed the abolition of that afternoon week day break. I believe that its abolition has been of great benefit, particularly to older people who like to go out for a drink, who wanted to extend their lunchtime drinking to perhaps four and five o'clock in the afternoon and then to go home and not come out again. They do not feel comfortable coming out at night and prefer to stay in, in front of the television, but they enjoy the sociability and friendship of the pub during the afternoon for a longer time than was once allowed.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister has told the House, little increase in drunkenness or crime has arisen out of the changes brought about by the Licensing Act 1988. I am certain that the Bill will have a similar civilising effect and I hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Before I reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and his remarks about damnation, I should pay tribute to the former right hon. Member for Castle Point, now Lord Braine. I recall that when his colleagues gave a litany of their interests in the trade, he would declare but a general interest. I believe that he made a signal contribution to the debates on licensing matters. He is sorely missed. Alas, attendance in the House today is thin, but when he spoke he always attracted a goodly attendance.
The hon. Member for Gillingham illustrated part of our problem with creeping incrementalism. As he said, we are veterans of the debates in 1988. At that time, he justified the changes to the licensing laws by using the housemaid's argument that the changes went only as far as we wanted to go and that it was only a little baby. He told the House:
I should have preferred Sunday lunchtime to be extended from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock"—


to be fair, he advocated that 11 o'clock opening today as well—
but if it is to be extended from midday until 3 o'clock I do not believe that the question of licensing hours will return to the House for quite a long time … it will remove the licensing issue from this House for probably a decade. It"—
this is the key point—
the extension had been from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock, I suspect that it would probably have removed it for all time"—[Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 454.]
Now, perhaps because of the possibility of watching Sky television or other cogent arguments that the hon. Gentleman adduced, he believes that the missing incremental gap should be removed.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the advantages of extended licensed hours to elderly people. That is rather like the argument that one hears from Conservative Members about those elderly ladies on fixed incomes in Cheltenham, when hiding behind those ladies are the larger vested interests that those Members represent. The evidence from the Scottish precedent following the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and, as far as we can judge, from the Licensing Act 1988, which covers England and Wales, suggests that those who have taken greatest advantage of the liberalisation provisions have not been elderly folk, but younger folk under the age of 35 and the heavy drinkers.
If the damnation predicted by the former right hon. Member for Castle Point has not been visited upon society, that has nothing to do with the civilising effects of liberalisation, but rather the recession. If the hon. Member for Gillingham and others believe that the Government's policies will lead to greater national wealth, that, in itself, will lead to greater consumption. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me that the key determinant of consumption is not wealth.

Mr. Couchman: We discussed earlier whether there was an increase in heavy drinking immediately after the 1988 Act. I stick by my suggestion that it lasted for about a fortnight. The country was hardly in a recession in 1988–90, so one would have thought that that drinking spree would have lasted for two years rather than two weeks if the hon. Gentleman's theory was correct.

Mr. Anderson: It may have lasted just two weeks in the hon. Gentleman's licensed premises, but the informed view is that it lasted for a year and then the recession took over. The key determinant of consumption is personal wealth.

Mr. Ray Powell: On the question of vested interests, does my hon. Friend agree that the only communications about the Bill that most hon. Members received were from the Campaign for Real Ale and the brewers? They are particularly anxious because they are losing trade through the import of drinks from Europe. People can now bring back gallons of alcohol in their minibuses, take it home and distribute it locally.
Does my hon. Friend agree that those vested interests who want to extend the licensing hours on Sunday, yet again, are repeating the Government's wishes on Sunday trading? I know that my hon. Friend was a great supporter of my Bill to restrict Sunday trading. The Government may speak about freedom of choice and extending the

rights of the individual, but does my hon. Friend agree that just as the retail companies were the vested interests behind the Sunday Trading Act 1994, so vested interests are behind the campaign to open pubs for longer on a Sunday?

Mr. Anderson: Of course, brewers have suffered as a result of bootlegging. That is a factor, but, unlike the Prime Minister, I cannot believe that the public interest is synonymous with the interest of the brewers.
It is highly significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) said, that the proposal to liberalise the hours on a Sunday was pulled out of the hat by the Prime Minister at the dinner of the British Retail Consortium. The context is very important as a clue to the origins of the proposals.
As a result, as my hon. Friend says, of the recession, as a result of the considerable increase in continental imports, and as a result of the mini-Budget in December, when the Government increased the duties on beer, it was obvious that the brewers were becoming pretty unhappy with the performance of what they deemed to be their Government, and the Government hoped to win back the support of the brewers, which, after all, had provided 10 per cent. of Conservative party funds at the previous general election. Several key brewers, including Allied Domeque—a major contributor to Conservative party funds—withdrew their funding from the Conservative party in 1994.
The context therefore makes one slightly suspicious of the Prime Minister's motive in producing the proposal out of the hat, with no consultation, as was said earlier, either with representatives of the clubs or with representatives of the licensed trade.
Historically, the beerage swung from the Liberal party to the Conservative party following Gladstone's Licensing Act 1872. I am rather proud because the Liberal Member—I repeat, Liberal Member—who promoted that Bill, Henry Bruce, was the only other member of my school, Swansea grammar school, ever to have served in the House of Commons. In the 1874 election, as a result, Gladstone complained that he had been washed away in gallons of beer.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Anderson: Let me continue, if I may.
During the debates in the other place on that 1872 Bill, Bishop Magee of Peterborough commented, "Better an England free than an England sober," sentiments that were echoed on 24 January 1995 by the Prime Minister, who clearly considers that social safeguards against drinking are no more than bureaucratic red tape. "Set the people free," says our Prime Minister to the brewers.

Mr. Jenkin: I intervene simply to point out that, if the hon. Gentleman had met any brewers or publicans recently, he would know that they hardly feel that the Government are in the pocket of the brewing or licensed trades interests. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission review of the brewing industry had them screaming with outrage at the Government. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we are somehow in their pockets.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman makes the argument fairly. It was precisely for the reason that the brewers were becoming disenchanted that the Prime


Minister felt that he had to give them a sop. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the history of those beer orders, which shows that Lord Young speedily retracted much of the effect when the brewers barked. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that 10 per cent. of the Conservative party's funds at the previous general election came from the brewers? Does he deny that, mysteriously, during that general election campaign, advertising hoardings that were formerly used by the brewers suddenly became available for the Conservative party? If he wants to deny that, I am ready to give way. Those are the facts.
It was Lloyd George, after all, from the Liberal party, who used the peerage for party purposes; the Conservative party uses the beerage for party purposes. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I should be very happy to consider it.
The only real pressure for longer hours comes from the drinks trade. The only plausible benefit is the increased profits that it hopes to make. That process, as I said to the hon. Member for Gillingham, is incremental. It was forecast, and it is precisely as we feared.
I recall the broken promise made in 1988, when the then Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), said that the Licensing Act 1988 would in no wise relate to Sunday; the Government did not seek to reverse the amendment that had been moved in the House of Lords. Now we know that the Government plan to abolish all limits on Christmas day and Good Friday. In my judgment, that is part of a generalised assault by the Government on our Christian heritage, and an encouragement for increasing humanism and secularisation.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: From suggesting that the Government are in the pockets of the brewers, the hon. Gentleman now moves to suggest that we are heathen fanatics attacking Christianity. Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that many Opposition Members will support the measure, that it is a deregulation measure, which will greatly enhance the quality of Sunday afternoons, and that it does not help the standard of debate in the House to suggest that the measure is being proposed other than on the basis of removing unnecessary controls that limit people's freedom of choice? Why does not the hon. Gentleman meet the argument head on and explain why he wishes people's freedom of choice to be limited by his opinions of what is an appropriate way to spend a Sunday afternoon?

Mr. Anderson: The Minister must contain himself. I shall come to that.
I am arguing that the Government intend the natural consequences of their actions, and that the natural consequence of what they have done in relation to Sunday trading is that an assault is taking place on the long-held Christian traditions in this country. This incremental measure may be regarded as part of that.
I therefore repeat my general arguments in relation to the value of Sundays to families generally, and more specifically to the lives of publicans and their wives, whose working conditions are often appalling, and who need a break. That is not an idea that I have drawn from the air; it is the result of several conversations with licensees in my constituency.
I confess that, when I began that telephoned public opinion poll, I did so with some trepidation, as I feared that the answers might not wholly accord with what I hoped they might be, but I was not to be disappointed. I shall give the House an idea of the comments that I received from representative publicans—licensees—in my city of Swansea. One said:
I am very much opposed to it. I have only just moved to 3 pm. The family and I now have our lunch at 3.45 pm.
Another licensee said to me yesterday:
I know that this will cream off the licensed trade's leisure hours.
Another said:
Sunday is the only day we have to spend together and sit down together.
Another, rather bigger, business man in my constituency, who serves perhaps 200 meals on a Sunday, said that he was very keen to clear his public House by 3.45 pm so that at last his family could sit down to a meal together.

Mr. John Sykes: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to us what in the Bill prevents such a publican from closing his doors at 3 pm?

Mr. Anderson: It is exactly the same pressure as will come in respect of Sunday shopping; it is market share. People will find that, simply as a result of competitive pressures, they have to move. May I give the hon. Gentleman another response from a licensee in my constituency, the only one who was fairly neutral on the issue? He said:
Yes, I shall open during the Sunday afternoon, if only because shall now be able to do legally what my competitors are doing illegally"—
which surprised me a little.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In the course of asking the publicans for their opinions on those matters— which is a very good exercise to undertake—did the hon. Gentleman ask them whether their regular customers would be likely to come to the pub at that time on a Sunday? If they did not, would the pubs close as a result? Surely they would not stay open if there were no customers.

Mr. Anderson: One of the constant themes that came through the survey—it was not selective questioning, in that I already knew the answers—was a general unhappiness about the state of the trade. The cake is only so big and the licensees wondered whether working longer hours would lead to a greater return. Nevertheless, they said that they would feel impelled to stay open for the reasons that I have given. I did not ask the licensees whether people would come to the pubs, because they would not know the answer. But they felt that they had to stay open, if only because of the current economic pressures upon the trade and their wish to compete.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman and I must make progress.

Mr. Duncan Smith: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Member does not intend to give way and, in that case, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) must resume his seat.

Mr. Anderson: I pointed out to the hon. Member for Gillingham that there is a key link between consumption and wealth. Therefore, there is a danger that steadily rising incomes will mean greater alcohol consumption. There is also some linkage between consumption and availability. For example, in Finland the 1969 extension of opening hours and the abandonment of various other restrictions led within six years to the virtual doubling of alcohol-related deaths, the incidence of violent crime and days lost at work.
The linkage between alcohol availability and consumption was accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham, the then Minister of State, Home Office, in debate during the proceedings of Standing Committee H in 1987. He said:
If the hon. Gentleman then asks whether it"—
that is, the extra hour's trading—
would lead to an increase in consumption if we did seek a relaxation on Sunday, the answer is probably yes because the licensing regime on a Sunday is much more modest".
He repeated that point about linkage when he said:
That will probably lead to an increase in consumption and, if people have to drive there, a risk of increased drunken driving".— [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 26 November 1987; c. 190, 128.]
My view would be less hostile if the Government's liberalisation measure was accompanied by any evidence of their serious concern about alcoholism and the problems associated with alcohol consumption. Far more public money is devoted to seeking to combat drug abuse and AIDS than to alcohol abuse. The harmful effects of alcohol are clear in terms of road accidents, domestic strife and street violence.
According to the British crime survey, in about half of all violent crimes, the victims state that the assailant was drunk, and about 25 per cent. of violent crimes occur in, or in the vicinity of, licensed premises. I mention in passing the associated longer national health service queues and the number of working days that are lost every year through alcohol-related absenteeism.
I concede that there is some evidence that the Government have responded to increasing public concern about the multitude of problems related to alcohol abuse. They released the report "Action on Alcohol Misuse" in 1991, set up the Health Education Authority, and established priority areas in "The Health of the Nation" document in 1986.
Yet certain Government activity, such as the introduction of the incremental measure today, flies in the face of their attempts to combat alcohol abuse. The grant to Alcohol Concern was reduced last year and the Government are reluctant to adopt a range of policies to improve the situation.
For example, the Government could introduce a "tax-as-you-drink" system, which would link duty to the alcohol content of drink. They could use taxation to encourage the development of a market for super light beers, with 2 to 3 per cent. alcohol content, and wines, with 4 to 6 per cent. alcohol content. The Government could introduce unit labelling of alcoholic drinks in pubs and retail outlets. In August 1994, the Government issued the "sensible drinking message" that men should drink no more than 21 units of alcohol per week and women should drink no more than 14. Yet brewers have responded by increasing the alcohol content in beer.
Other Government measures could include monitoring the effectiveness of alcohol education, allocating more resources for new health centres and random breath testing. Such measures would show that, while the Government are liberalising the licensing laws and thereby allowing easier access to alcohol, they are also aware of the dangers of alcohol misuse and devoting public money and ministerial attention to that campaign.
The whole point of extending the licensing hours is to increase consumption. The higher running costs associated with longer hours can be paid for only by an increase in sales. The longer-hours lobby has not yet proved that a more permissive regime has any other advantages, whereas the risks are well documented. Tough controls are undoubtedly one of the main reasons why Britons drink less and why Britain has fewer alcohol problems than most western countries. The Prime Minister—a weak Prime Minister addressing the British Retail Consortium and the representatives of the brewing industry—clearly prefers populist gestures to the long-term interests of our nation and a spurious freedom to an attack on the problems of alcoholism.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As I listened to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I despaired that we are spending so much time discussing a very small deregulatory measure. Given the tone of his warnings about the risks of a "more permissive regime", one would think that we were considering deregulating nuclear power. The moral overtone in the words "more permissive regime" would be more appropriate to a discussion about the deregulation of pornography.
In fact, we are talking about the sort of small deregulatory measure that should not be necessary in a modern, mature and democratic society. I believe that adults are quite capable of making decisions for themselves; they do not need to have their lives regulated to ensure that families sit down to a meal together. People should be free to make natural choices.
The purpose of the debate is to allow people to explore the pace of deregulation and its effects and consequences. Deregulation is sweeping the whole of Europe—the Europe that is so beloved of many Opposition Members. I can see that one, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), is about to jump to his feet.
If Labour. Members were to spend their holidays in France, for example, they would find a complete absence of regulation of licensing laws. One can stop at a roadside cafe at 7.30 am, in the middle of the day or in the afternoon and drink any kind of alcohol. I do not see Frenchmen rolling around the streets drunk, crashing their cars, or divorcing their wives as a result. I give way to the hon. Gentleman with enormous pleasure because I enjoy sparring with him so much.

Mr. Enright: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. You will have noted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not "jump to my feet". I hope that I rose gracefully to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. Does


he recall the halcyon days of "back to basics" when the Prime Minister mused on the traditional English Sunday of ladies on bicycles of willow and of the green?

Mr. George Howarth: And warm beer.

Mr. Enright: And warm beer, indeed, as my hon. Friend reminds me. Is the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) now saying, as appears to be the tenor of his argument, that the Prime Minister, in order to prove that he is at the heart and centre of Europe, is turning to the continental Sunday?

Mr. Jenkin: There must have been some misunderstanding of the Government's "back to basics" policy in regard to Sunday, certainly from the perspective of the hon. Gentleman. The family Sunday was and is intended to be voluntary. There was never anything compulsory or legislated about the family Sunday. Even a Labour Government—who would be committed to much heavier legislation in many spheres of life—might draw back from legislating about family Sunday lunches. We need to keep the matter in perspective.
The hon. Gentleman did not deal with my point about Sunday licensing legislation or the equivalent on the continent. As he is probably even more committed to being at the heart of Europe than the Prime Minister is, one would have expected him to be more committed to continental Sundays.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend think that people go to church on Sundays only because 'they cannot go to the pub, that they have Sunday lunch with their families only because the pub is a problem for them around lunch time, that they rule themselves by the inability to get a drink and that as soon as it is all deregulated, family life will break apart, lunches will fall to pieces and people will stop going to church?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has inspired me. I have suddenly realised what Opposition policy should be. Pubs should be compulsorily closed between 12 and 2.30 pm to encourage families to go home and have their Sunday lunch. Perhaps that proposal will be made later in the debate.
I return to the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, East. He has a paranoic terror of what is motivating the Government. It is either money that was paid to the Conservative party to encourage us to behave in a certain way, or money that was taken away from it that was making us behave in a certain way. He could not make up his mind about that. He seems to inhabit a world in which all kinds of motives are imputed to particular circumstances and individuals.
It beggars belief that the Government have caused more disruption in the brewing industry than any previous post-war Government because we have attacked its monopolistic tendencies. If we have paid the price of reduced contributions to the Conservative party, so be it, but that shows the Government's objectivity in the matter and not that we are prisoners of the brewing interest.
We need more deregulation measures. The Prime Minister speaks for the majority of people when he proposes deregulation policies. We should deregulate more retailing and licensing laws in future. It may not be helpful to my hon. Friend the Minister to say that it is

likely to happen, but I hold out no long-term prospects for the survival of the present licensing or Sunday trading laws.
The laws simply freeze in anomalies and unfairness to one group or another. It is far better to let individuals decide when they want to shop and when they want to go to pubs to drink. We should allow the market to decide how best to deliver the services that consumers actually want.
Let us take as an example the problem of garden centres under the new Sunday trading regime. Most gardeners like to buy their garden produce early in the morning and plant it during the day, but the current regime does not allow them to go shopping until after 10 or 11 o'clock. If they do their shopping at a filling station or another shop that is not principally a garden centre, they can buy the produce at any time, so we are discriminating against garden centres.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I know that a number of representations have been made about garden centres in respect of the Sunday Trading Act. My hon. Friend suggested that it might be the Government's fault, but he will recall that it was a matter that Parliament itself determined on a free vote.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I should say that although I accept passing reference to other matters I hope that he will not expand upon garden centres, remembering the contents of the present Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise.
I raised the matter tangentially merely because I have had representations from garden centres in my constituency. My constituents are particularly concerned that on Easter day, which should be their biggest trading day of the year, they are not allowed to open. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister and although the Government may not feel compelled to examine the issue, the House will have to examine it al some time and, on a free vote, eventually we will get it right.
I wish to turn to what are called grey imports in the beverage business and to the serious problem of the differential duties between the United Kingdom and continental Europe. I welcome the Bill as it will help the brewing industry at a difficult time.
I may be rather unfashionable in this respect, but I think that sooner or later, in order to protect our tax base and ensure that our industry continues to prosper, we shall need to reimpose personal limits at points of entry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that at one and the same time we should have deregulation of hours but re-regulation of the stuff that is actually drunk? That seems a little odd.

Mr. Jenkin: There is the small matter of the way in which a country's tax base has developed. The tax base of a nation state represents hundreds of years of inherited


cultures and values. It is impossible instantly to harmonise the tax base across the European Union without causing grave disruption.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a long-standing tradition here that the matters discussed should be relevant to the subject of the debate. The hon. Gentleman is now going very wide and I suggest that he draws to a conclusion or gets back to the point.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to you Madam Speaker, and I can hear the words, "closing time" in my ears.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key problem that he is discussing, which is relevant to whether British pubs will be more competitive, is that the Opposition have consistently opposed any widening of the VAT bands? The fact that our VAT bands are narrow along with our other problems may eventually lead to my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Jenkin: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I shall not be drawn.

Mr. Barry Porter: In an attempt to be helpful and to bring the debate back to the original point, my hon. Friend might be willing to hear the history of how Sunday restrictions were introduced and for what purpose. All the original licensing regulations, with one or two exceptions, were the result of an attempt by the Liberal Government—and thereafter a, coalition Government—to stop munitions workers getting drunk during the first world war. The first world war is over and munitions workers are not getting drunk. There is a residual chapel vote, which has just been represented, but there is no reason whatever to have such restrictions.

Mr. Jenkin: I was going to avoid mentioning the war; it is not helpful to blame the Germans for everything. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the measures have long outlived there usefulness and I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Janet Anderson: I shall try to be fairly brief. I am the only woman present in the Chamber and I think that it will be self-evident when I finish that women in this place often find it easier than men to make brief contributions.
I shall first declare a registered interest. The Argyll group, which runs a number of supermarkets, makes a small contribution to the running of my constituency office.
As hon. Members will know, I have long had an interest in Sundays and legislation affecting Sundays. Sunday is often the only day that I have with my family—it is often my only free day. I welcome the freedom to shop and to engage in as many activities as I choose. Sunday will always a special day for me as it is the only day when I can exercise those choices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to Sunday as a family day. Families should be free to choose what they want to do on Sundays. One of our favourite family pastimes on a Sunday is to walk in my constituency, through Sunnyhurst woods, up to the Darwen tower, which was built to record Queen

Victoria's silver jubilee. It was only possible to build it because, one year earlier, the public gained access to Darwen moors. It is the centenary of the Darwen tower next year.
Our walk usually takes place after Sunday lunch. We walk down from the tower and reach the Sunnyhurst public house at about 5 pm. There is nothing that we would like better than to stop for a rest and a pint, but we cannot do so because the pub is closed. I am sure that many of my constituents who also enjoy that walk on a Sunday—particularly my good friend and patron of Sunnyhurst pub, councillor David Smith—look forward to the ending of the afternoon break.
Those opposed to this modest piece of deregulation may console themselves with one thought: if people do not use pubs during the new opening hours on Sundays, there will be no point in opening then and pubs will not do so. If, however, people want to use pubs then, they will continue to open. The House should vote today to give the public the chance to show what they want.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) mentioned the problems with supermarket staff. I, too, have seen staff on Sundays subjected to aggressive behaviour from customers who have arrived just to late to buy their six pack or bottle of wine. Such scenes could be avoided by removing the restrictions on the sale of alcohol in supermarkets.
One positive aspect is the gradual erosion of the notion that we have to be controlled and prevented from doing things because they might be bad for us—as if we should feel guilty about enjoying ourselves. It is important—I speak as a mother of three teenage children—for people to have a responsible attitude towards alcohol and its consumption. I hope that the Bill will lead to public houses becoming family friendly and women friendly. I believe that it will have that effect as public houses will seek to compete with establishments such as Harvesters, which serve food all day.

Mr. Jenkin: Does the hon. Lady share my concern about existing restrictions on families in many public houses? Should we not modernise the legislation so that all pubs are friendly places for families and we do not have the absurd situation whereby publicans have to apply for a special licence to make their premises available to families? If all drinking establishments were naturally family places, would not some of the more rowdy elements naturally be excluded?

Ms Anderson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that public houses should be welcoming places for families so that children do not regard them as secretive places into which they are not allowed. Such an approach encourages inquisitiveness—children want to know what they are banned from. It would be better if pubs were open and easily accessible. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for his intervention.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the fact that we continually return to this place with little bits of licensing legislation. I agree that it would be nice to deal with all of them in one go. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) mentioned one specific anomaly. We are today talking about the deregulation of licensing hours—in stark contrast to the current legislation on casinos.
We often think of casinos as places where people gamble for hundreds or thousands of pounds in the plushest parts of central London, but there are casinos all around the country. Many of them are used for pleasure by people on relatively low incomes who like a little flutter now and then. In the main, casinos cannot serve alcohol after midnight—we should consider that restriction. The industry brings in millions of pounds to this country and employs thousands of people. I understand that the Prime Minister was recently dining in a casino and was shocked when his drink was taken away at 12.30 am. Perhaps that is something that the Minister can consider changing—I am sure that he will have the support of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ray Powell: I regret that I have not been present for the whole debate. I represent a Welsh constituency, Ogmore, which has the largest cell of the Klu Klux Klan in the country. The Anti-Nazi League had a demonstration here in London today, and I had to attend to that. I should like to have been in the Chamber for the start of today's important debate.
The Minister—I hope that he is listening—sent a short two-page letter on 9 February which seemed to suggest that the Bill was of little consequence to many people. I do not share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) for the Bill, and she does not share my enthusiasm for controlling Sunday trading.
I represent a constituency with beautiful views. It contains Ogmore castle and, not too far from it, a pub. Families would probably like to visit the castle and have a drink at 3 pm, when the pub might be closed. Restrictions have been lifted in Wales. Only a matter of years ago, we restricted Sunday opening hours and even prevented a number of pubs from opening at all on Sunday. I well recall going to a pub in Worcester, half of which was open on Sunday and half of which—the part that happened to be in Wales—was closed. If a customer went into one part, he could have a drink on Sunday, hut he could not have a drink in the other half. That was ludicrous and I would not like that to happen today.
I have a fear, which I think is shared by quite a few Christians in the House and throughout the country. We are allowing licensing freedom on Sunday, which has always been a family day. We are allowing shops to open on Sundays and everybody thinks that that is excellent. As the senior Member sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, I know that, since shops have been legally open on Sunday—they have, for a long time, been opening illegally—USDAW members are finding that our predictions about the promises made to them by some large stores about double-time on Sunday and freedom of choice as to whether to work on Sunday have come true.
The Minister should talk to the licensees who, over the past 12 months, have already suffered the bitter experience of renegotiating their licences with the brewers. They are finding that, even now, they have little time to themselves. It will be worse if they are told that they have to work right through a Sunday. We are talking

about giving leisure time to all families, but if licensees want a break to be with their families, they have to ensure that there are staff in the pub so that it can open.

Mr. Hawksley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Powell: I do not have much time. I have been given five minutes. I have been told that that is all I have, so I had better not give way. I shall have a job getting what I would like to say into five minutes.
I can visualise what will happen in my constituency once we tell licensees that they have to open all day. There is between 15 and 20 per cent. unemployment in my constituency, much of it long term. People have been out of work since 1983–84 and the end of the miners' strike: the Government decided to close every colliery in my constituency and declared 12,000 steelworkers redundant. Fathers without a job and without an interest go down to the pub in the week for a drink. On a Sunday they know that they have to get home at 3 o'clock, not only for their Sunday dinner but because the pub shuts. I know what will happen to their family life. The mother, son or daughter will have to go down to the pub and see if dad will come home at the usual time of 3 o'clock.
It is all right for my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen to talk about her lovely walks with her family and calling into the pub for a drink. Other families in Britain, especially in Wales, are out of work and have no money in their pockets, but they find the money for the man to go to the pub. On a Sunday afternoon, so that he can he go back to his family for his lunch—

Ms Janet Anderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Powell: No. My hon. Friend knows that I have only five minutes.
I was surprised at the brief letter that we received from the Minister. He said that there should be practically no opposition to the Bill. The floodgates are being opened for all-day Sunday licensing hours.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that, as the House of Commons defeated their measure on VAT on fuel, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said, "We will get the money from somewhere. We will get it from the brewers. To console them, so that we keep their contribution to Conservative party funds for the next election, we will extend licensing hours on Sundays so that the brewers can rake some more money in." The effect on family life will be catastrophic. The House would be wise to reject the suggestion and keep the restriction on Sunday licensing hours for as long as possible.

Mr. John Sykes: I rise to speak briefly on the Bill as the vice-chairman of the Back-Bench deregulation committee and one who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in 1994. I am the Member of Parliament for Scarborough and I also represent Whitby. It is a well-known constituency which relies heavily on tourism for its prosperity. The Bill is a continuation and amplification of the Government's deregulatory moves. The Bill aims to extend choice for both the consumer and the licensee.
In 1989, the Government introduced measures to allow pubs and clubs to open on weekday afternoons. I remember in the months leading up to implementation of the measure the dark warnings about eternal damnation, drunkenness on the street, violence and disorder. All have proved to be unfounded. In Scarborough and Whitby those measures have enhanced the prospects for tourism and, therefore, prosperity and employment for my constituents.
Visitors to Whitby, which is the home of Captain Cook and much else, come from all four corners of the world. Now, on weekdays, they can enjoy a drink in any of the numerous harbour bars, but not on Sunday. The walkers who tramp the glorious north Yorkshire moors can enjoy a drink when they arrive at Goathland—otherwise known as Aidensfield in the famous television series "Heartbeat", which is filmed in my constituency—during the week, but not on Sunday. Why is a Sunday afternoon drink any different from a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday afternoon drink? The Bill will put that right.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced, for the first time, children's certificates for pubs. That was a welcome measure for families with children. Many families, mine included, enjoy going for a drink on a weekday during the recess or on a Saturday, but we cannot do so on a Sunday afternoon. The measure works well, except on Sundays. The Bill will put that right.
Whenever I go to a pub on a Sunday afternoon, there seems to be a polite stampede to the bar at 10 minutes to 3. Blokes line up pint after pint and other assorted drinks to have before closing time. They drink them as quickly as they can get them down their throats, which leads to intoxication. The Bill will help to ensure that that does not happen and that people take a much more measured view of drinking.
At present, the licensing laws prevent shops that open on Sundays from selling alcohol between 3 pm and 7 pm. It is becoming impossible to justify preventing customers who have access to a complete range of goods, including food and tobacco—which, in my book, is far more dangerous than alcohol—from buying a bottle of wine. I do not see anything wrong with being able to buy a bottle of wine at any time of the day.
The measures in the Bill are extremely welcome. They will enhance tourism. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. George Howarth: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been an interesting and long day for the Minister and for me. We started at 10 o'clock this morning dealing with drugs. This afternoon, we moved on to the problems of Sunday licensing hours. During the debate, we touched on such a wide range of interesting subjects as the origins of licensing controls in the first world war, Europe and the role of Germany in all this. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) and I raised the implications for the casino industry. No corner of the entertainment life of the great British public was left out. At one stage, there

was even a minor skirmish into the consequences of the "back to basics" debate, but on that subject, the least said, soonest mended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) expressed a view that is not entirely unfamiliar to the House. He has been consistent and proper in the views that he has expressed. To put the record straight and to show that he is consistent with the debate that has taken place in Wales, I should like to quote from The Guardian of Tuesday 20 August 1968. The article is headed, "For a wet Sunday welcome in Wales". It makes the connection with the points that my hon. Friend made. It begins:
Welsh beer is a headier brew than most when there is a suggestion that it should be served on a Sunday: just thinking about the idea is enough to make some heads spin; talking about it triggers the passionate nationalism every Welsh man believes he ought to feel about internal affairs.
The lineage of the sentiment has just been expressed again by my hon. Friend.
Help is at hand from my hon. Friend's part of the world. I have before me a letter from the director of leisure of Ogwr borough council, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency. The director of leisure appears to support the idea of Sunday drinking. He says:
Without having to express any opinion on the merits or otherwise I do feel that if such changes are to be introduced that consideration at the same time be given to reviewing the law as it relates to public music and dancing. At present there can be no public dancing on a Sunday—which creates particular problems when say New Year's Eve falls or runs into a Sunday (clubs are in the main not affected as they are not 'public').
If the Bill is given a Second Reading and eventually ends up on the statute book, on the first Sunday after that there will be dancing in my hon. Friend's constituency.
In certain contexts, the question of Sunday being a special day has been irredeemably changed. The argument about Sunday trading was the watershed for that. Until then, a number of other hon. Members and I had clung to the Keep Sunday Special position, but we have now moved beyond that—perhaps for good, perhaps for ill. This Bill is a tidying-up measure rather than a great issue of principle that should divide the House. Of course, I am not suggesting that there should not he a Division, if that is what some hon. Members want.
There is now trading on a Sunday and Sundays generally are viewed by the majority of people more as days of leisure than as days of worship. As someone who regularly attends church, I thought it wise to speak to my local vicar, Rev. Tom Steele, on the telephone yesterday. His view is that the argument is more or less in the past and that we cannot defend the historic position. He also said—this is' characteristic of him—that he had spent many happy hours in a pub on a Sunday.

Mr. Enright: After services.

Mr. Howarth: It is as my hon. Friend says.
For those who want to worship on a Sunday—I am one—it is not impossible to enjoy a day of leisure, which might include a visit to a pub and Sunday worship, all within the one day.
Some hon. Members have raised important points that should be either answered by the Minister when he replies or, as some of them are quite detailed, dealt with in Committee.
The first point relates to the rights of those employed in the industry, whether they be bar staff, tenants, managers, licensees or others. It is important that those currently employed should not be expected, as a matter of course, to work additional hours. They should not be subject to any disciplinary action if, as is perfectly reasonable, they choose not to work additional hours on a Sunday. At a later stage of the Bill's passage, we shall seek reassurances on that point. Another point of concern is the lack of consultation on the proposals. That was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
It is odd that, only a month or six weeks after the announcement was made in a great flourish of prime ministerial activity, the Bill has reached its Second Reading stage. Between now and the Bill going into Committee there should be further consultation on exactly how the proposals will affect all those associated with the industry.
All the anomalies in the licensed trade will not be sorted out by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and many others who are involved in the all-party non-profit-making clubs group and those who are associated with the club industry feel that things need to be changed. I understand that, in due course, they hope either to introduce a private Member's Bill in this place or to follow the applicable procedure in the other place, and I hope that the issues can he dealt with in that context.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen said, it would have been both proper and useful to bring all those matters together in this one Bill so that they could be dealt with at the same time. Those issues remain to be resolved and there are some anomalies that need to be dealt with.
One of my reservations has been mentioned by several hon. Members on both sides of the House: although we welcome the move towards pubs becoming more family friendly and are glad that the new system has been introduced, there is clear concern that the trade has not risen to the challenge. All too often, pubs and clubs are not attractive to families. No one wants to return to the archetypal image of pubs which was so unattractive that children were often left on the pub steps with packets of crisps and bottles of lemonade while mum and dad were inside having a drink. Those days were most undesirable.
The challenge for the trade is to make pubs attractive, bright, clean, decent places where families want to go, rather than, as all too often happens, places where no person would want to take his family for a couple of hours' entertainment. All the issues need more time given to them and more detailed investigation.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does my hon. Friend really think that children should be taken into a pub at 3 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon when that pub might already have been open for three or four hours? Most of the people there would have been drinking for three or four hours. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it would be ideal to take children into that sort of place?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not think that his question was intended to make me feel that way. It would be inappropriate to take a young family into many establishments. The force of my argument is that we should make more establishments

family friendly. I have three children—a teenage son and two children under the age of 10. On occasions, my wife and I have taken them into pubs that serve food on a Sunday. It has been an enjoyable experience. Some pubs cater specifically for children and they provide special facilities such as colouring-in books. I would never want to take any of my children—or, indeed, even my wife—into a pub where people were drunk and there was violence or other difficulties. People make a choice and generally they would not take their families into that sort of establishment.
All these issues can be raised at a later stage in the Bill's passage, but they certainly require further discussion. It is a free vote tonight, so my hon. Friends will make their decisions on which way to vote. Having listened to their speeches, I know that how they will vote is fairly predictable. I do not mean that in any way as a criticism; I happen to think that the Bill deserves a Second Reading and we can discuss our reservations at a later stage. I shall vote in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to respond to this useful debate. I very much welcome the support of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). As he said, we began our day this morning on drugs and we have ended up on drinking on the sabbath day. There has been a surprising degree of consensus on both those matters. I hope that it will not be long before we can find matters on which we disagree because so much consensus in one day is ruining my reputation.

Mr. George Howarth: May I reassure the Minister that, although we have managed to reach some consensus on two issues today, we shall return to battle tomorrow?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I: am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here, but I hope that the message will go out to every miners' welfare in the land that the hon. Gentleman is the man who wants to stop miners being able to drink there on Sunday afternoons. Indeed, he told us that there was no demand for this measure. I do not know where he spends his time these days, but it is obviously not in the clubs and pubs around the country—

Mr. David Evans: In Belgravia.

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend suggests that he knows. The hon. Member for Bolsover obviously does not spend his time in the miners' welfares or in the other establishments that will benefit from this legislation. Meanwhile, with some trepidation, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evans: I just thought the Minister might like to know that the hon. Member for Bolsover spends a good deal of his time in Belgravia, in disguise, waiting for his American friend to summon him to her presence.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall not follow my hon. Friend down that path.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North referred to employment protection and drew a parallel with the provisions of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. There is a distinction: that Act created a situation in which people would be required to work on Sundays when they had


every expectation that that was not a possibility, given the nature of the law. This Bill does not do that; it merely extends Sunday working hours, so I do not see a parallel. I am sure, in any case, that we can discuss the matter in Committee—the hon. Gentleman gave notice to that effect.
The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about consultation. I do not know whether I am allowed to say this, but the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that this measure would be introduced as part of the deregulation exercise has helped no end in ensuring the necessary agreement to bring the Bill before the House. I believe that the country will welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman feels that there has been so much speed about the process that there has not been enough time for consultation. We shall welcome any views expressed on the implementation of the Bill, but it does extend people's freedom and I think that it will prove popular. There has been widespread bewilderment on the part of the general public when they, able to shop for the first time on Sundays, have found partitions put up at certain times of the day in supermarkets, screening off the sections that sell alcohol and deal with licensed sales.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed anxiety at the fact that, when the 1988 Act was passed, there was no mention of any wish to liberalise Sunday hours—a fair point. The explanation is that the Government at the time had just had something of a setback on the issue of Sunday trading. Many of those who had signed early-day motions did not actually support the findings of the Auld report when it came to voting in the Division Lobbies. It would not have been right to introduce such a measure while the issue of Sunday trading was still up in the air.
In 1988, Sunday drinking hours were extended from 2 pm to 3 pm. That became known as the Ferrers hour, after my right hon. and noble Friend. I understand that the Ferrers hour has met with general approval throughout the land. This measure provides for a further popular extension of hours. I have no idea whether anyone's name will be attached to that extension, but we all live in hope—

Mr. George Howarth: The Forsyth extension?

Mr. Forsyth: I was thinking more in terms of the Howarth extension.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) got himself into a real tangle. Let me have a third go at explaining the position. He asked, I think, whether supermarkets would be able to trade on Sundays when Christmas day is a Sunday, and on Easter day, as a result of the measure which provides for the sale of alcohol on those days when shops are able to trade. The answer to his question is no. The Sunday Trading Act specifically prevents large shops from trading on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday, and on Easter day. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman and that he may even feel disposed to support the Bill tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) asked about licensing committees and the exercise of discretion. I was concerned to hear what he had to say, based on his experience, about what is happening in respect of new children's certificates and the conditions that are being

implemented. I can assure him that I will get Home Office officials to monitor carefully what is going on. It is early days yet, and I very much hope that this will be a real opportunity to create the family pub which most, if not all, hon. Members would like.
Worries expressed about the exercise of discretion by magistrates do not appear to be reflected in the decisions that they have taken in respect of afternoon openings and their ability to control them when problems have arisen and there has been a need for restriction orders. I am not sure whether it is right not to allow magistrates some element of discretion.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suggested that the protections in clause 3 would be limited to disorder—not so, as I explained in my opening speech.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made an extraordinary speech in which he detected all kinds of conspiracies behind the Bill. That was unworthy of him, but I do agree with his remarks about alcohol misuse and the dangers that it represents to our society. Part of ensuring responsible drinking is encouraging people to see pubs as family places, not restricting their hours unreasonably.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who apologised for not being present at the end of the debate, made a moving plea for what I can only describe as the harmonisation of our licensing laws with Europe's—an interesting reversal of the position that he usually adopts in the House. I expect that, if he were here, he would intervene to tell me that at least this decision would be taken by the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) made an excellent speech which stood in contrast to the one by the hon. Member for Swansea, East. She described finding herself after a Sunday walk outside a closed pub at 5 o'clock. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country have had a similar experience and will benefit from the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), with his considerable experience in the licensed trade, gave us an insider's view of how this legislation would benefit the licensed trade, which is experiencing some difficulties at the moment.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) made the speech that we would expect of him and came up with the extraordinary proposition that pubs should be closed to stop people going who do not have the money to go to them. That is ludicrous—why should the rest of the population who want to spend their leisure time as they choose have restrictions placed on them so as to deal with those who run their lives less responsibly?
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), in an excellent speech, underlined the importance of the measure for tourism and described how jobs and prosperity depend on the removal of petty restrictions of the sort with which the Bill deals. He said that he wanted it pushed through the House as quickly as possible.
If the House gives the Bill a fair wind and it completes its stages here and in the other place, it will be possible to implement its provisions rapidly after Royal Assent. Whether the tourist and leisure industries have the benefit of the legislation in the coming summer season is in the hands of hon. Members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided; Ayes 304, Noes 116.

Division.74]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dowd, Jim


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Ancram, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Eagle, Ms Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Elletson, Harold


Ashby, David
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Austin-Walker, John
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Barron, Kevin
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Sir Graham
Gillen, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs Angela
Godsiff, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burden, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Byers, Stephen
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cann, Jamie
Grylls, Sir Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carrington, Matthew
Hague, William


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hall, Mike


Chidgey, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hawksley, Warren


Coffey, Ann
Hayes, Jerry


Colvin, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Henderson, Doug


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert


Cummings, John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Dicks, Terry
Home Robertson, John


Donohoe, Brian H
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Dover, Den
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)





Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Philip


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ottaway, Richard


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hunter, Andrew
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Jack, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Pope, Greg


Jenkin, Bernard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Radice, Giles


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rendel, David


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Richards, Rod


Key, Robert
Riddick, Graham


king, Rt Hon Tom
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


kirkhope, Timothy
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkwood Archy
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knox, Sir David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillen


Lidington, David
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilly, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherdand, Robert
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Speicer, Sir Derek


McAllion, John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McKelvey, William
Spink, Dr Robert


Maclean, David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


McWilliam, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maddock, Diana
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Mahon, Alice
Steinberg, Gerry


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meale, Alan
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Merchant Piers
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tipping, Paddy


Monro, Sir Hector
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Mowlam, Marjorie
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wallace, James


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Waterson, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Watts, John






Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Wray, Jimmy


Whitney, Ray
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Widdecornbe, Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Simon Burns.


Willetts, David





NOES


Alison,Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Loyden, Eddie


Alton, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
McCartney, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McCrea, The Reverend William


Barnes, Harry
Macdonald, Calum


Battle, John
McFall, John


Beggs, Roy
Macinlay, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
McMaster, Gordon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
MacShane, Denis


Boyes, Roland
Madden, Max


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Callaghan, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Michael, Alun


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Corston, Jean
Morgan, Rhodri


Cousins, Jim
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Cox, Tom
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mudie, George


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mullin, Chris


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Day, Stephen
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Devlin, Tim
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Dixon, Don
O'Hara, Edward


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dykes, Hugh
Pawsey, James


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter L


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Purchase, Ken


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Raynsford, Nick


Fraser, John
Redmond, Martin


Fry, Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
Rogers, Allan


Galloway, George
Rooker, Jeff


George, Bruce
Rooney, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sedgemore, Brian


Graham, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Griffiths, Win (Blidgend)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Snape, Peter


Gunnell, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hanson, David
Speller, John


Hardy, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Timms, Stephen


Horam, John
Turner, Dennis


Hoyle, Doug
Vaz, Keith


Jamieson, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Williams, Rt Hon. Alan (Sw'n W)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Khabra, Piara S



Klfoyle, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Derek Enright.


Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Housing (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995, a copy of which was laid before the House on 2nd February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995, a copy of which was laid before the House on 2nd February, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

Mr. Lang: This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate the local government finance and housing support grant orders. Traditionally, the debate provides an opportunity to consider not only the detail of the orders but the wider issues relating to local government and housing finance.
I propose to speak briefly to the orders and then make some general comments on matters relevant to them. I hope that that will enable the debate to move forward.
I start with the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1995, about which I need say little. It is necessary because of a reduction in the pool rate of interest used to estimate local authorities' loan charges. It is accepted and normal practice for Ministers to bring forward a variation order in these circumstances. That will reduce total housing support grant payable in 1994–95 from £25.7 million to £24.2 million.
The draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995 provides that the total level of housing support grant payable in 1995–96 will be £22.3 million. Broadly speaking, that sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of those authorities which, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. Its purpose and the assumptions used are explained in detail in the report that accompanies the order.
Our estimate of management and maintenance expenditure is based on an assumed average spending level of £748 per house. That represents a 7.5 per cent. increase over the equivalent average for the current year and is further evidence of the Government's commitment to the maintenance of the physical condition of Scotland's housing stock.
For the purpose of the HSG formula, the assumed average standard rent for next year has been set at a notional £37.48 per house per week. I should stress that that is not a forecast, nor is it a guideline or even a recommendation: it is an assumption used solely for the purposes of grant calculation. The actual rents charged by authorities may be higher or lower according to the local decisions about housing income and expenditure that local authorities have taken over the years.
I shall discuss the implications of the subsidy settlement for actual rents in a moment, but before doing so I should draw the attention of the House to the question


of general fund contributions. Such contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council tenants. That kind of subsidy is indiscriminate in that it benefits all tenants, regardless of their personal circumstances; and it is unnecessary to the extent that tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit. As in previous years, therefore, the proposals in the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1995 prevent authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions next year.
The effect on local authority rent levels will be relatively small, as the large majority of local authorities in Scotland do not receive housing support grant in respect of their mainstream council housing. Clearly, the subsidy proposals will have no impact on the rent decisions of those authorities. On the 11 authorities that will receive grant in respect of their council housing, the effect of the change in grant will vary. In most cases, grant is a relatively minor component of housing revenue account income and the impact is likely to be outweighed by the authority's own decision on such matters as management and maintenance spending.
As Government subsidies form a small proportion of housing revenue account income, it is difficult to forecast average rent increases with any degree of accuracy. I expect, however, rent increases for 1995–96 to average between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent., as was the case in 1994–95. That is on the assumption that local authorities will wish to make real improvements in the housing services that they provide to their tenants, and it is right that the extra costs should be met by the tenants who benefit.
The Government's proposals for housing support grant next year are, I believe, a fair and reasonable subsidies package that balances the interests of the tenants, the council tax payer and the national taxpayer.
I now turn to the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995. Its purpose is explained in detail in the report that accompanies the order.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Before the Secretary of State does that, can he perhaps explain to the House why, once we remove the community care element of about £40 million from the settlement—money that is, of course, rightly and properly set aside for the community care developments that we all want to see—he is imposing on Scottish councils a cut of some 10 per cent. or 11 per cent? How does he expect the councils to maintain the level of service to their tenants without pushing rents through the ceiling or cutting services drastically?

Mr. Lang: I do not recognise the figures to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The grant to which I have just referred is payable only to 11 authorities and represents a relatively small proportion of support for council housing. The vast majority of support comes through housing benefit, where an anticipated £800 million will come through next year.
The purpose of the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995 is explained in detail in the report which accompanies the order. The position is relatively straightforward and, again, I do not think that I need say very much about the order itself.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The tenants of Greenock and Port Glasgow are

slowly beginning to stand on their own two feet, and I understand that just over the horizon is the enticing promise of several hundred jobs. May I plead with the Secretary of State, however, to respond favourably to the representations of Inverclyde district council concerning what a constituent recently described to me as "that damned eyesore"—the Gourock rope works? I personally have made numerous representations—I would like the thing to be pulled down—but will the Secretary of State please respond to sincere representations made to him and his ministerial colleagues by members of the council?

Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's hopes for the employment prospects of Greenock and Port Glasgow, and I note what he has said about the Gourock rope works. I know the building well. The matter involves Historic Scotland, however—the building is listed—and it would be inappropriate for me to comment, even if the issue were covered by the terms of the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995. I suspect that if I tried to respond in any detail I would be ruled out of order, so I shall press on.
Under the so-called AEF guarantee, the level of revenue support grant payable to local authorities for each of the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 is adjusted either up or down in the light of any variation between their estimated and their actual level of non-domestic rate income. The objective of the arrangement—which has been fully accepted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—is to ensure that each authority receives the combined amount of revenue support grant and non-domestic rating income that they were promised at the time when authorities were first notified of their settlement for the year in question. At that stage, my Department made an estimate of the level of NDRI that each authority would receive. The guarantee arrangement has been necessary because of the difficulty of estimating NDRI with any accuracy, mainly because of appeals against valuation that take some time to be resolved.
The order makes a further adjustment to the levels of revenue support grant payable for each of the three years covered by the guarantee in the light of returns that local authorities submitted to my Department last autumn showing their actual levels of NDRI for the years in question. Because of the effect of successful appeals against 1990 valuations, there has, in general, been a reduction in the level of NDRI in comparison with previous estimates. The order, therefore, provides for the payment of extra revenue support grant, totalling nearly £65.7 million, to compensate for the reduction.
I should make it clear that that figure is net. Although 61 authorities will receive extra rate support grant, the remaining four will receive less. That is because, against the general trend, their level of NDRI has increased as compared with previous estimates. Subject to the House's approval of the order, the extra RSG will be paid to the authorities concerned in April.

Mr. Thomas Graham: This may appear to be a convoluted question, but it is not intended to be. The health board in my area proposes to close Ravenscraig, Bridge of Weir, Merchiston and Dykebar hospitals. Has any consideration been given to the stress and strain that that would cause


to Inverclyde and Renfrew district councils, which would have to provide health care in the community? Has the Secretary of State included that in his budget?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record very effectively, but it does not relate to the order that we are debating—and, to the extent that it might relate to it at the margin, it would relate to the distribution formula used for the allocation of resources between different authorities. That formula is agreed with COSLA and reviewed every year.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State must know that, owing to a combination of the financial arrangements that he is imposing and the capping regime, Highland region will be down £12.9 million this year. That will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on local services. The council currently faces a choice between closing its job and enterprise unit, with the loss of about 120 jobs—which would be a very bad thing—and sacking an uncertain number of teachers, perhaps 200 or 300.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me: I have not yet reached the order to which his comments relate. However, in the light of what I am about to say about the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995, I shall be happy to give way to him later if he wishes to pursue the point. The order that I have just been, discussing relates specifically to the adjustment of non-domestic rating income to take account of the outcome of valuation appeals, so that local authorities receive exactly what we undertook to give them.
Certainly in terms of the amount of money involved, the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995 is the main order that we are debating. It represents the final stage of the local government finance settlement, details of which I first announced on 29 November last year. The settlement provides for the level of Government-supported expenditure—that is, total grant-aided expenditure and provision for loan and leasing charges—to be set at £6,116,900,000, an increase of 1.72 per cent. on the current year's figure. It also provides for aggregate external finance—which comprises revenue support grant, non-domestic rating income and a number of specific grants—to be set at a level of £5,306 million.
The report that accompanies the order provides a detailed explanation of its purpose, but it may be helpful if I briefly summarise the position. The order has three separate purposes. The first is to distribute the revenue support grant and NDRI components of AEF for 1995–96 to individual local authorities. The specific grants component of AEF, which for next year totals just under £397 million, is distributed on the basis of claims by authorities, and is therefore not covered directly by the order itself. A total of just over £3,716 million is distributed as revenue support grant, and £1,193 million is the distributable amount of NDRI.
As in the past two years, NDRI is being distributed to regional and islands councils only, with the agreement of COSLA. That means that district councils will again receive their AEF support solely in the form of revenue support grant and specific grants.
The distributable amount of NDRI takes into account my Department's estimate of the amount of business rate income that local authorities will collect next year on the basis of the unified business rate poundage of 43.2p which I also announced on 29 November. When we took over control of business rates from local authorities, businesses in Scotland faced a local business rate that averaged 76.6p in the pound. The Government, with the full support of the Scottish business community, have spent the last five years, and £440 million, working towards a unified business rate throughout Scotland and England.
Next year, for the first time, Scottish business will operate on a level playing field with business south of the border. Our unified business rate policy has already delivered significant benefits to Scottish business—at least £440 million worth per annum. What is more, the guarantee that we have given to maintain that level playing field permanently will ensure that the benefits continue.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge and welcome the movement that has been made to try to reconcile the positions north and south of the border, but will the Secretary of State re-examine the exemption scheme carefully? I do not think that the orders for the exemption scheme that he has announced have yet been laid. I think that, when the revaluation details are known to small businesses in south-east Scotland, they will cause considerable concern. I know that transitional protections will limit the amount of the actual bills, but the increases will nevertheless be substantial in relation to anticipated inflation rates. That will affect small businesses throughout Scotland, not just in the south-east. Will the Secretary of State look again at the exemptions and transitional protections that he has announced, so that the amounts paid by small businesses can be restricted even more than he intends them to be?

Mr. Lang: I constantly review such matters, but I must point out that the benefit of the reduction in the business rate from 76.6p in the pound to 43.2p makes a dramatic difference to businesses large and small throughout Scotland. We have also introduced transitional relief schemes in the light of revaluation—schemes that are specifically more beneficial to small businesses than to larger ones. I expect the benefits to be widely felt by businesses in Scotland.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On the subject of assistance to business, will the Secretary of State reconsider the effective prohibition of purchase and lease-back schemes from the end of this financial year? Does not he appreciate that, in a range of regional councils in Scotland, those schemes are an important part of industrial strategy, and that their effective cancellation will cause great damage to many businesses? Will he reconsider that point?

Mr. Lang: I do not accept that anything like the damage implied by the hon. Gentleman will be caused. There is no reason why local authorities should not, for the rest of this year, continue to take advantage of the schemes that we have announced. Most local authorities are doing so. The exception is Grampian regional council, which seems unwilling to deal with the realities of the scheme. My officials are more than willing to continue to make the position clear to that council.
The schemes are available until the end of the current financial year and we are considering various aspects that we may wish to clarify further. I am confident that the limited effect of the schemes in relation to local government expenditure overall does not justify the sort of comments that have been made. Our measures are sensible in the context of overall public expenditure.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Secretary of State agree that his figures and calculations are based on a notional figure of £37 average rent throughout Scotland, when the average rent is only £27? On the general fund contribution, does he agree that everyone who applied last year was refused?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman rose to make a point that I covered some five or 10 minutes ago. I made it clear to him that the rent figure of £37.48p per house was used exclusively as a notional figure, and solely for the purpose of grant calculation, in the context of local authorities' resources under the HSG formula, and taking account of management and maintenance costs. He is right—rents are some pounds lower. Indeed, they are some pounds lower than in England. But making a direct relationship between rents and the figure that I mentioned is not relevant.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Secretary of State creating a level playing field by setting that universal business rate level? How does he react to the criticism that the estimated target yield will be exceeded by almost 3p in the pound, which will put an extra burden on Scottish businesses?

Mr. Lang: If the estimated target yield is exceeded, the chances are that it will do so because the rating base has grown, which will he the result of the expansion of Scottish industry. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, rather than detract from it.
We are creating a level playing field. It is astonishing that, just as we have secured our goal, the policies of Opposition Members seek to throw away the benefits that Scottish business enjoys. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), speaking with all the authority of an official Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, has confirmed that a future Labour Government would return control over the level of poundages to local authorities.
The hike in business rates that would inevitably result from local authority control and the destruction of the level playing field that we have achieved would seriously undermine the ability of Scottish companies to compete in the marketplace. Existing businesses would be threatened, new businesses would be deterred and our efforts to attract inward investment to Scotland would be jeopardised.
Labour's motives in proposing such a policy have patently nothing to do with the needs of business and nothing to do with the needs of the Scottish economy. I have not heard a single Scottish business man calling for business rates to be returned to council control. Labour clearly aims to satisfy the desires of its free-spending councillors, irrespective of the needs of business.
I wrote to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on 18 January asking him to confirm whether that policy would, indeed, apply in Scotland. I pressed him on the matter again in the House on 28 January.
Despite that, I have yet to receive an answer from the hon. Member. I know that developing policy is a difficult and novel experience for Opposition Members, but the hon. Member for Hamilton only needs to tell the House whether he supports the policy of his colleague, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras; or is the hon. Member for Hamilton afraid of admitting Labour policy, as it would be so damaging to the interests of Scottish business? The hon. Gentleman need not fear answering; I can assure him that this is not a planted question from the Scottish National party.

Mr. George Robertson: That was a Conservative Central Office comment, meticulously delivered in the music hall style that has become the hallmark of the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the Secretary of State's consideration of the consultative document, which was published by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and which relates solely to England and Wales, did the Secretary of State read the autobiography of the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), the other man with the whiskers? In his fine book entitled "Speaking My Mind", he says that the universal business rate was a mistake, that it has separated businesses from their areas and
diminished the calibre of councillors because local businessmen no longer stand for election to be financial watchdogs on local councils.
Conservative Members are not unanimous about the future of the UBR. Labour's consultation will take place in Scotland. It will have a Scottish policy to protect Scottish business and Scottish industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will do the same down south.

Mr. Lang: I am not sure if I am supposed to take it from those latter remarks that policy will be the same north of the border. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman is not yet prepared to say that it will not be the same. He plans to allow a free-for-all for local business rates. That would lead back to the 76p in the pound level achieved by Labour authorities before we introduced the uniform business rate. It will be noted throughout the business community in Scotland that the Labour party shrinks from committing itself to maintaining the level playing field that we have so painstakingly secured for the Scottish business community.
The AEF total for next year has been distributed among individual local authorities using exactly the same methodology as in previous years. The methodology involves equalising, first, for variations in authorities' assessed need—as determined by their grant-aided expenditure assessments—to incur expenditure and, secondly, for variations in their tax base and, consequently, in their ability to raise income locally from the council tax. Just over £1,303 million of the AEF total for next year is being used to equalise differences in authorities' GAE assessments, while a total of nearly £3,962 million is being shared among authorities in proportion to the number of council tax band D equivalent properties in each authority area. I hope that the House finds that clear.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State regard this as an appropriate moment for me to pose again the question that I asked earlier? In the case of Highland


regional council, the combined effect of the measures and the financial and capping arrangements will lead to 12.9 per cent. less money for services. That means that the council immediately faces the choice of closing its job and enterprise unit, with the loss of 120 jobs and of a great opportunity for people to enter new employment, or sacking X number of teachers. Is that the sort of choice that the Secretary of State wants to give local authorities?

Mr. Lang: It is not; nor do I accept that it is necessarily the choice that they face. Of course I acknowledge that Highland regional council has been one of the authorities that has argued about the distribution formula from time to time. Its argument, however, is not with me; it is with other local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which has agreed with that formula, on the basis that money is equally and evenly distributed, taking account of relative need through a sensitive formula.
As for the overall quantum, it is well known that expenditure has risen sharply in local authorities in recent years. There has been an increase of some 20 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years. Last year alone, in real terms, local authorities have had 2 per cent. more expenditure than had been anticipated following inflation rates estimates at the beginning of last year.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Secretary of State's convoluted prose serves only to obfuscate the truth. He is trying to pull wool over our eyes. The position described by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is replicated throughout the whole of Scotland, so it is not a question of distribution. Strathclyde is facing terrible options.

Mr. David Marshall: It faces a crisis.

Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. Community education is one the services that is threatened. Voluntary organisations will not have places in which to meet. That means that we will have more crime and more drug taking among young people. That is sort of thing that will happen. The Secretary of State knows that, as he has made cuts, local authorities have made efficiency savings year after year. He must give them some guidance. Where will they find the savings? Will they have to sack teachers or will they have to accept any of the other options? He must say, and he should not leave it to local authorities. I know what he is up to. He is hoping that they will get the blame for the problems when the election comes on 6 April. He is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the end of a lengthy intervention. Interventions are supposed to be short and to the point.

Mr. Lang: If I were to seek to give guidance to local authorities of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests he would be the first on his feet, accusing the Government of intervening in local government decision making. The fact is that local authorities have had a substantial expansion in resources at their disposal over the years.
If the problem in Strathclyde is so severe, why did the authority expand its staff numbers so substantially last year at a time when some other local authorities were

retrenching? When the hon. Member for Hamilton makes his speech, perhaps he will be able to confirm whether the report in The Scotsman last Friday was correct. It reported that Hamilton district council is contemplating not an increase in next year's council tax but a 10 per cent. reduction. That is hardly the action of a council under the sort of pressures to which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lang: I think that I shall give way to a Conservative Member this time.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Is not the previous intervention typical of the Opposition? They call for devolution and responsibility, but when they get that responsibility, what do they do? They whine and gum and try to pass the buck back to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Lang: I could not have put it better, so I shall not try.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lang: No, I have given way many times and I must make progress.
The second purpose of the local government finance order is to increase by relatively small amounts the level of AEF payable to two local authorities for 1994–95. The authorities involved are West Lothian and Western Isles. In the case of West Lothian, the increase is the result of the district council taking on additional housing benefit responsibilities, and in the case of the Western Isles the additional AEF is to enable the islands' council to subsidise the costs of internal air travel in the Western Isles following the introduction of the air passenger tax last November.
The third purpose of the order is to redetermine the level of AEF for 1993–94, taking into account changes in each authority's council tax base since the original distribution as a result of, for example, successful appeals by householders regarding the tax band in which their property should be located.
I should make it clear to the House that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been consulted about the detail of all four orders and has had no points to raise on any of them. I fully recognise that COSLA is unhappy about the overall level of next year's local government finance settlement—I shall say something about that in a minute or two—but the convention has raised absolutely no complaint' about the way in which the settlement total is being distributed among authorities.
The methodology for determining authorities' grant-aided expenditure assessments is kept under regular review by the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance which comprises representatives from the Scottish Office and the convention. While there are inevitably complaints from authorities which lose as a result of a change in the distribution methodology, I think that one of the strengths of the system is the extent to which it operates on the basis of consensus. I hope that tonight we shall not hear from the Opposition the sort of allegations that have been made in these debates in previous years—that, in some


way or other, the distribution penalises particular authorities or that it has been manipulated by the Government. It has not.
I said earlier that I proposed to say something about the overall level of next year's local government finance settlement. I fully accept that it is a tight settlement, but it should not come as a surprise to anyone in local government or to Opposition Members. I have consistently warned local authorities over a period of years that they needed to bear in mind the limits on the levels of public expenditure and to look closely at ways of delivering their services more efficiently. For the most part, they have chosen to ignore that advice. Most councils have continued to increase the numbers of staff that they employ.
I believe that local government must play its part along with the rest of the public sector in helping to control the level of public expenditure. Every extra £1 spent on local government would mean £1 less for health, £1 less for industry and £1 less for all the other areas for which I am responsible at the Scottish Office. If Opposition Members are arguing for more money to be given to local government, they should tell the House which other vital public services will be deprived of resources to fund this higher spending. How many millions would these services lose to finance the spending desires of local councils? Or perhaps they will tell us what taxes they would raise to enable local government to spend more. Would business rates be the first target? Or would they raise income taxes? Without those answers, no one need attach any credence to the Opposition's cries of underfunding.
Although I have acknowledged that it is a tight settlement, I certainly do not think that it is an unrealistic one, given low inflation. Nor do I think that it is unrealistic to expect local authorities—in common with the rest of the public sector—to fund any pay increases from efficiency savings. If authorities had made some attempt to find efficiency savings in the current year to meet the cost of 1994 pay increases, they would not have stored up for themselves the need to find savings in the forthcoming year to cover the cost of 1994 and 1995 pay increases.
Almost every year in these debates, we hear allegations from Opposition Members that the Government are underfunding local government in Scotland and have destroyed local services and local authority jobs. The hon. Member for Hamilton was no different in last year's debate. He claimed that the consequences of the 1994–95 settlement would be thousands of job losses, service reductions and an extra 10 per cent. on council tax bills across Scotland. What was the reality? The numbers employed in local government rose instead of falling; the average increase in council tax levels was, in fact, riot 10 per cent., but 5.5 per cent.; and the hon. Member for Hamilton and his colleagues were also wrong about cuts in services.
The reality of the situation is very different from what is suggested in the Opposition's rhetoric. Let us consider the facts. In the past 10 years, expenditure by Scottish local authorities has increased in real terms by more than 20 per cent. and nearly doubled in cash terms. In the seven-year period up to June 1994, staffing levels in Scottish local authorities increased by more than 6 per cent. while, in the same period, staffing levels in English authorities reduced by almost the same percentage figure. Even after the 1995–96 settlement, the level of

Government-supported expenditure is 33 per cent. per head of population higher than the comparable English figure.
I could go on to talk about improvements in particular local authority services and, if pressed, I should be happy to do so, but these figures demonstrate clearly that the Government, far from underfunding and attacking Scottish local government, have made it prosper.
It is against that background that next year's settlement must be viewed, and it is also against that background that I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: The Secretary of State described this year's settlement as extremely tight, but that is surely an understatement. In fact, for two of the regional councils in Scotland—Lothian and Strathclyde—it is not only tight but punitive and arbitrary and it will lead to reductions in real services for real people. The Government's decision will force up local council taxes, all local charges and, in the process, inflation, at the very time when the Government are yet again claiming that in Scotland and elsewhere the recovery has just started.
The Secretary of State did not have the gall to describe the housing settlement as extremely tight. It is not just extremely tight; it means strangulation. Without doubt, it is among the most savage and vindictive housing settlements for many years. Those who will pay the price will be council house tenants and the thousands who languish on council house waiting lists all over the country. Council taxes will be forced up by 10 per cent. on average, even after stringent cuts by many local authorities. There is little doubt about that now. Services will be affected and the quality and availability of housing will decline all over Scotland.
Why? Why are local authorities and the Scottish people being expected to bear all this pain? The reason is simple: the Government's need to find cash this year to fund election tax cuts next year. They want to pass on a tax increase one year in the form of a tax saving next year. It is a cynical, brazen abuse of central Government power so that tax bribes are available for an election Budget.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that this year's settlement is not sufficient. He has clearly done his sums but, if he wants to be taken seriously, he must tell us by how much this year's settlement is short. Which aspects of the block should be cut to fund the local government settlement? If new money is needed, has the shadow Chancellor agreed? If not, which of his shadow Cabinet colleagues' budgets will have to be cut to provide the hon. Gentleman with the money that he wants?

Mr. Robertson: I do not know whether that speech was given to the hon. Gentleman as a consolation for not being the new Minister. If so, he was sold cheap. Believe it or not, the Tory Members present on the Back Benches are the reservoir of talent now available to fill future resignations. I exclude the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) from that reservoir as he beached himself long ago.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) asked about the savings. Let us start with the money that was wasted on Health Care International. If that is not


enough to fund the increases that should be made available for services, let us take the £700 million that will be wasted on the unnecessary and unwanted reorganisation of local government. That is a start for the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he writes it all down and puts it in his next speech—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Mr. Robertson: I am slightly more understanding than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration.
All those cuts to keep back money for next year will be in vain because nobody will believe the Government on taxation ever again. A Government who lied so clearly and unequivocally before the last election are unlikely to be trusted on anything to do with financial management in the future. That is the verdict not of the Opposition but of an opinion poll that gives the Secretary of State for Scotland a rating only 2 per cent. higher than that given to Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein in the last elections in Northern Ireland. It is the Scottish people's verdict on what the Government have done for the past 16 years and what they are doing now. The Scottish people will not be fooled by a Government-dictated council tax increase this year, which may be followed by the same amount of money next year in tax reductions. They are much too intelligent to be taken in by that.
The Government's disgraceful discrimination policy is in sharpest relief in their housing budget. The statistics speak for themselves. Fourteen years ago, the housing support grant stood at £228 million, with a further £100 million from general funds. Next year it will be reduced from £328 million to £22 million. That tells its own story.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House clearly about the difference in housing benefit during the same period, because that money goes directly into the housing coffers?

Mr. Robertson: It demonstrates the poverty that exists in Scotland. It is astonishing that a Conservative Member boasts about the amount of housing benefit being paid in Scotland. That is public expenditure to help people in need because of the poverty created by the Government's economic policies over the past 16 years.

Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I have been generous enough in what I have said.
Over the past 14 years, some £200 million has been taken out of housing, in a housing environment where the Government's statistics tell the story of the problems that face Scottish housing. A survey carried out by Scottish Homes paints a bleak picture. Statistics collected and collated by that Government agency show that 4.5 per cent. of all Scottish housing is below what is defined as a tolerable standard. That is a total of 100,000 Scottish homes in both the public and private sectors. They also show that 13.5 per cent. of those homes suffer from dampness and 20 per cent.—one in every five—of houses in the public and private sector suffer from condensation, mould and dampness. Those conditions affect 500,000 houses.
That is the extent of the problem facing Scotland today, yet the Government's public expenditure White Paper tells the Scottish people that they intend to cut expenditure on housing by 20 per cent. over the next three years. So, in response to a housing crisis that is unparalleled in modern times, the Government will cut the amount spent on housing. Under their convoluted system of calculating, rents for council house tenants will be forced up yet again by at least 5 per cent.—2 per cent. more than the Government's calculation of inflation. When the Government took power in Scotland, council house rents were on average £4.92 a week. When the new settlement comes in next week, they will be £27.77. That is a stark fact about the rents paid by ordinary Scottish families.
Now, 40 per cent. of Scottish housing investment goes not to local authorities but to the super-quango, Scottish Homes, which has been given more generous relief and flexible financial surroundings to spend the money.

Mr. Graham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robertson: May I just give my hon. Friend the benefit of a further statistic? No less than 80 per cent. of Government grant in aid now goes to Scottish Homes for it to spend.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that I represent an area with one of the biggest concentrations of Scottish Homes property. It recently gave notification that, once again, rents would go up massively. Bearing in mind the fact that ever since Scottish Homes has been in operation, we have had year-on-year, massive rent increases, when will we reach the end of it?

Mr. Robertson: We shall reach the end of this bleak and dismal point of view at the next general election. It is part of a strategy, not an accident. It is not even a policy of the Scottish Homes board—weird, wonderful and highly political as its policy decisions are. It is a decision by Her Majesty's Government to drive people out of the rented sector. Using the excuse of choice, they drive people into a single form of housing tenure: owner-occupation. That is why rents have been artificially increased in both the rented and Scottish Homes sectors.
Two years ago, Scottish Homes received £250 million to write off its capital debt following the sale of 30,000 of its houses, presumably at a discount, which left it with an on-going capital debt. Why have not local authorities in Scotland, which, after all, had to dispose of some 300,000 houses, received relief for the capital debt that they continue to hold following the sale of council houses? Where is the equity of treatment? Are the Government interested in a balanced housing policy? Do they care for people who need a house, or are they simply obsessed with getting locally elected and democratically accountable councils out of the business of providing housing for rent? I fear that the answer to those questions is ominous.
Given the contrast between the housing settlement and the favourable treatment given to Scottish Homes, a new and sinister aspect is creeping into how that quango is operated. Not only is it taking over the bulk of Government assistance to housing, but it seems to be taking over the political job of the Government. The members of the Scottish Homes board, whose names the


Secretary of State on Monday could not recall without referring to his notes, has taken on itself the decision deliberately to deny tenants—

Mr. Lang: Rubbish.

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State could not give the names when my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asked him to tell him the names without looking at his list.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I will give way to the Secretary of State if he would like to give me the names—

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I am not interested in the hon. Gentleman. Would the Secretary of State like to tell me now, without looking at a piece of paper, the names of the members—

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box, but it is the Secretary of State who cannot recall the names of those on that powerful board. He cannot name them, but they have taken a decision in his name. That board has made a policy decision deliberately to deny its tenants the right to choose a local authority landlord.
At least I know that the board includes Councillor Daphne Sleigh—who is one of that last remaining number of Tory elected councillors. Those board members get paid in salary and expenses £250,000 a year—that is what the Scottish Homes board pays its members. The chairman of the board gets paid more than a Member of Parliament, but rejects the advice and views of Members. The board of Scottish Homes is now dismissing the views of all Scotland's Opposition Members by deciding that it will deny its tenants a choice. We are beginning to see the untrammelled arrogance of the Tory quango state.
Last week, the chairman of Scottish Homes, Sir James Mellon, sent me a letter not just defending his board's indefensible decision to deny choice to tenants—defending it might have been technically legitimate—but going beyond that and attacking the Labour party and challenging it on its housing policy. He ended with an unconcealed sideswipe at Scotland's local councils. Sir James Mellon, a former diplomat, who has never stood for election in his life, said:
Real democracy is once again at work.
Yours sincerely, Jimmy".
He and Mr. McKinlay then offered themselves for interview and press conferences. They happily threw the whole weight of their publicity machine behind an unconcealed attack on the Labour party. Ministers are now able to stand aside and let the quangos do their political dirty work for them.
Why is Scottish Homes now engaged so blatantly in the party-political debate? Quangos are supposed to be responsible to Ministers; they are not supposed to free, party-political agents in their own right. The Secretary of State, not unelected placemen, is supposed to be responsible for policy, Scottish Homes should leave politics to the politicians.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is my hon. Friend aware of another negation of democracy

concerning Scottish Homes? When hon. Members table questions to Ministers about Scottish Homes the only response we get is that the chairman of Scottish Homes will reply to us. That letter is sent to the Member rather than being published in Hansard, available to the public gaze.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom and perception on this matter. He has underlined, as I have also sought to do, the remarkable and disturbing new development in the way in which that public body is now deploying its financial resources, and its considerable publicity resources, in the party political interests of the Government.
I find the behaviour of Scottish Homes quite extraordinary, because it represents a major and disturbing shift in the way in which quangos are run. I must inform the Secretary of State that I intend to write to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary to the Cabinet to ask whether that behaviour is in line with present policy. It should also be drawn to the attention of the Nolan committee that unelected chairmen of quangos are now entering into the party-political arena. As a consequence, the independence of public service is seriously in question.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: When my hon. Friend writes to the Prime Minister he should point out that tonight's debate, which is a political one, essentially involving civil servants, is also being repeated not only in the media but door-to-door on Scottish housing estates, because the staff of Scottish Homes, who are understandably trying to make sure that they have a job to go to, are promoting a particular option, because that is all that Scottish Homes will allow. It will not allow free choice.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because people are being denied the right to choose a local authority as their landlord. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that other choices are also being limited as a result of the deployment of the resources of Scottish Homes.
On previous occasions I have spoken highly of some of the work of Scottish Homes. Perhaps I should regret that, because Sir Jimmy Mellon quoted my commendable words in his letter to me. I accept that Scottish Homes has a creditable record and has done many innovative things. I am saddened by the fact that the chairman and the board have taken it upon themselves to become an extension of the Tory party political machine.
The local government settlement has been a tight one for all councils. For many councils, prudence and careful management—as in the case of Hamilton district council—has produced an outcome that will allow them to keep the council tax level stable or even, in some cases, to reduce it. In the case of Lothian, Strathclyde and other regions, the effects of the settlement will be punitive. The Secretary of State says that no representation about the distribution was made to him by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, according to annexe 1 of the briefing note—I am sure that even the Secretary of State has been handed it—Strathclyde's budget will be cut by £15 million in this year. There is little doubt that it is suffering far more than other regions.
Despite Strathclyde's long-standing record of financial prudence and cost-effectiveness, it will have to make serious cuts in service this year and perhaps put the


council tax up by about 20 per cent. It will do so reluctantly, but necessarily because of the settlement. Cuts of £107 million are not just extremely tight for the council, but border on dangerous. They endanger key services such as education and the police and will force above-inflation charges for rail, bus and ferry services. That is bound to have an impact on concessionary fares for the most vulnerable. Strathclyde is cutting not at the fat, but at the bone. This year, cuts made by Lothian will also seriously affect the quality of valuable services.
One of the roots of the problem is the Government's failure to cover the pay settlements for this year, especially that for teachers. In the light of inflation increases, the pay settlement—5.1 per cent. over two years—was not generous. It was a cautious one. A Scottish Office observer sits in at the teachers pay negotiations, but this year not a word was heard from that person. The local authorities across Scotland have now been left with a bill for £144 million to cover the pay settlements, £65 million of which is meant for the teachers' pay settlement.
What are the efficiency savings about which the Secretary of State talked? What are councils supposed to do? Are they meant to increase class sizes and the pupil-teacher ratio? This year, the Secretary of State published yet another glossy document entitled "The Parents Charter in Scotland". It was costly publication. On the quality of teaching it says:
You
—the voter; the public; the citizen; the council tax payer and the parent—
have the right to expect that the staff who teach your child will be suitably qualified, professionally competent and well motivated. You can also expect high standards of teaching at all times.
The Secretary of State has said that people should expect that, but at the same time he is demanding massive efficiency savings, especially in education budgets. If they want the quality teaching and teacher motivation that is required to comply with their objectives, the Government cannot run away from their direct responsibility for financial settlement this year.
The Government continually tell us that the councils are increasing their staff. We hear that refrain year on year, as though it was a great crime for councils to increase their staff at a time when 250,000 people are out of work. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) says, yes it is. No; he says that it is a crime. [Interruption.] The price that some people will pay to get on to the Front Bench. The Whip said nothing.
We are allowed to believe that it is a crime to increase jobs at a time when 250,000 of our fellow citizens are out of work but, if it is a crime, there are some remarkably obvious culprits in the dock. Tory Stirling district council, Tory Berwickshire district council and Tory Bearsden and Milngavie district council are all employing more people than they did last year.
Moreover, the Scottish Office is employing more people, although the Secretary of State massages the

figures. Oh yes, the hard core of the Scottish Office has decreased in numbers, but when one takes account of the impact of the agencies, one finds that—

Mr. McMaster: Sir Jimmy Mellon.

Mr. Robertson: Not even Sir Jimmy Mellon. No; we are talking about the direct agencies such as the Prison Service. It emerges that, in 1990, there were 255,500 full-time equivalents in local government; in 1994, there were 255,300 local government employees, down by 0.8 per cent. However, in the same period, the Scottish Office, the Secretary of State's empire, has increased by 4 per cent. So if it is a great crime that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will pronounce on, in his propaganda role, let us ensure that the criminals are fully identified.
The Secretary of State genuinely knows—he is not an unintelligent man—that local authorities, in many cases, have had to increase their labour force, including those Tory councils, because he has placed new burdens on them; massive new burdens in terms of community care, and continuing burdens in collecting the poll tax, something for which he and the Conservative Government should bear responsibility until the end of time. We should have no more homilies about the iniquities of increasing staff levels, because there is the same strong smell of humbug as comes so familiarly from the Government.
I should like to add my voice—this may sound peculiar in this week of all weeks—to the opinion that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) expressed in relation to notional receipts. Many councils—including the Conservative councils, because the representations made to the Secretary of State were from every council in Scotland—feel that the decision that has been taken about notional receipts is unfair, unjust and will work against the interests, not only of local government, but of industrial development.
Labour councils will make the best of the settlement, and they will work efficiently and with dedication to ensure that people are spared the full impact of the settlement. However, as usual, the Government have produced a bad deal for local government, especially for housing authorities, and a bad deal for Scotland in general. They simply will not now tackle the real problems confronting the Scottish people.
This is simply one more settlement in a long line of attacks on the power and the services of locally elected councils. Those attacks have wounded more than the structure of local government, which can, and will, be revived by a new Government after the next election; they have hurt the people—many of whom are the most vulnerable in society—that local government helps and serves. The Government will never be forgiven for that, and they will pay a heavy price for it.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I admit that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) put a strong argument to persuade the green vote to join him. Indeed, I suggest that he is the champion of recycling because, if speeches are anything to go by, it appears that he uses the same whining and whingeing speech every year in this debate. He makes the same prophecies every year, but he never looks back and says, "Sorry, I was wrong last year; I will attempt to get it right this year."
The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke about additional expenditure for local authorities and explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) where all that money would come from. He would stop waste, like the money that was expended on Health Care International. As Government input of £30 million into HCI attracted private investment of £150 million, I do not regard it as anything to apologise for. As, in the past eight years, people in and around Clydebank have found employment, I do not think that the money has been wasted. I think that many people in that area will have been grateful for the £30 million injected by the Government and grateful for the jobs that have been provided.
At the end of that, we still have a first-class hospital, possibly the best hospital in Europe, which can be used to earn money for the United Kingdom, for Scotland, but, above all, for people who will find jobs in that hospital in the years to come.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I admire the hon. Gentleman's new enthusiasm and conversion to the idea that the Government should be investing in industry to stimulate employment directly. That goes completely against the philosophy of the Government, or is he saying, "No; we do not invest directly in manufacturing, we invest only where private medicine can make a fast buck"? Is that the distinction that he makes?

Mr. Gallie: What I am saying is that when the Government have money to invest, they consider the best means of achieving a sound capital project and the best means of creating work with the money that they have to invest. I am suggesting that that project created a lot of work, and achieved many of the aspirations that I would expect if Government are to use much-valued taxpayers' money to try to support development of industry and commerce in our country.

Dr. John Reid: rose—

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Gallie: I give way to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham).

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the argument that I made earlier about four hospitals in my area that are earmarked for closure? If the £30 million that the Government squandered in Clydebank had been put into our area, we could continue to provide a much-needed service and at the same time stimulate the local economy.

Mr. Gallie: In the past I have used the services of the new hospital in Greenock, and I believe that if the Government invest, as they evidently are, in new hospitals, new clinics and new health centres there must be a reduction in older buildings. Opposition Members appear to fail to recognise that. They appear to think that one can keep everything from the past yet they expect what is new in the future. There is a rationale, and there is a balance to be struck. The hon. Member for Hamilton, in the search for cash, said that he would have stopped local government reorganisation. I would have to say—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Gallic: Give me a break and let me try to get on a little bit.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that he would stop local government reorganisation because there is no clamour for it. Perhaps that is so in Hamilton, but in Ayr there was certainly a clamour to get rid of Strathclyde regional council. That was a promise that we made in our manifesto and, as usual, Conservatives meet their manifesto pledges and, as usual, we are doing so to a reasonable time scale—a time scale that the hon. Gentleman, in yesterday's argument, said was not achievable, yet now we find that we are bang on track. The elections for the shadow authorities are approaching. In Committee last year, the hon. Gentleman said that that would not be possible. The elections are coming up and the hon. Gentleman probably has his colleagues throughout Scotland all geared up for them. What the Conservatives promise, the Conservatives achieve. We will seek value for money.

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, but I may give way later. I have only until 10 o'clock to finish my speech.
Labour Members constantly moan and whine that local councils do not receive enough money, yet those councils are currently receiving 40 per cent. of the Scottish block grant.
Labour Members advocate a Scottish Assembly. If an Assembly is set up—I will do everything in my power to oppose such a move—it will place strain on local authority budgets because each Assembly member will want to spend money in his own area. Local authorities will be deprived of the very generous settlements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has provided for them in recent years.
Just as councils blame all their failures on underfunding from the Scottish Office, so too would a Scottish Assembly look to Westminster—to the seemingly bottomless pit of money that can be dipped into on a whim. The Conservatives recognise that there are no bottomless pits; funding is limited.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic elegance and courtesy. I simply point out to him that I am the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. Many people in my constituency are deeply concerned about the inadequacy of the local community care programme that is being drawn up by the relevant parties and they are concerned about the threatened closure of Ravenscraig hospital.

Mr. Gallie: I fully accept that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is who he says he is. The concerns that he expresses about community care could be echoed by virtually every Member of Parliament for Scotland. A time of change is a time of anxiety and concern. I was concerned that the introduction of community care meant passing responsibility to Strathclyde regional council. I welcome the fact that in future the new South Ayrshire authority will take responsibility for the provision of community care. I am sure that it will work very closely with the health boards and the health trusts to provide a very good service in the area.
During a recent sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee I asked what increase, if any, there had been in local authority spending over the past four years. I was told that there had been a 14.5 per cent. increase. I was puzzled by


that answer because Labour Members are always saying that local authorities face constant cuts. In the past 10 years, local authority expenditure has increased by 20 per cent. I would like to know where the cuts are; I would like Labour Members to justify their claims.
Has staffing been cut in local authorities? No, because since the late 1980s the number of local authority employees has increased by more than 6 per cent. The hon. Member for Hamilton addressed those issues a short time ago. He and his colleagues constantly talk about cuts in local authority services and numbers.

Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: No, I have been more than fair in giving way. I know that Labour Members will complain about me later for speaking for longer than I had intended.
Let us look at the facts. The aggregate external finance settlement, which comprises revenue support grants, non-domestic rates and other grants, totals £5.3 billion this year—that is 45 per cent. higher per person in Scotland than in England. That is food for thought. Yet local authorities continue to complain. It is a tradition for local authorities to complain. One year they will have something to complain about and no one will believe them—it will be a case of the boy who cried wolf.
Labour Members have threatened the business community, commerce and industry that a Labour Government will go back to the old ways and lift the controls from non-domestic rate contributions. That will also remove the inflation controls on non-domestic rates. If that is not true, I will give way and allow Labour Members to deny it. There is no protest from Labour Members, so obviously they intend to remove those controls.
I compliment and congratulate my right hon. Friend on the moves towards a uniform business rate. Business and commerce in Scotland have called for that measure for years, and we are all grateful for it.
Much has been said about the difficulties that we face in the housing sector, but since 1979 more than 250,000 new homes have been built in Scotland, and 20,000 new homes are constructed each year. Housing philosophy has changed and no Conservative Member should apologise for that. In 1979, 63 per cent. of housing was publicly owned; today, the figure is just over 45 per cent. Scotland is moving into the modern world—a world which recognises that people like to own their own homes, invest in their property, improve their facilities and reap the rewards that flow from that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurry up."] No, I have given way a number of times. I warned hon. Members that, on that basis, I was liable to extend my speaking time.
Strathclyde regional council claims that it will be underfunded in the coming year. I must acknowledge that the settlements are tight. I expected them to be tight, particularly in the wind-up year for regional councils. Strathclyde regional council should have recognised before now that there would be financial constraints and it should have planned for them in the long term. However, long-term financial management has never been Strathclyde's forte.
In the months ahead, I expect my right hon. Friend to stick stringently to the statements that he has made about capping. His capping intentions are not idle threats and local authorities must be kept to the strict capping limits. I expect the same to apply next year when the new local authorities are established. I ask my right hon. Friend to cast his mind back to the introduction of the community charge. I believe that it was the right way to fund local government. The Government made one major mistake in introducing the community charge: they did not cap the authorities from the first year. On that basis, local authorities extended their expenditure and community charge payers met the costs.
Finally, having mentioned Strathclyde, I should draw attention to another local council, Tory-controlled Kyle and Carrick district council. When the Tories took control from Labour in 1992, they inherited a £4 million deficit, which they have paid off in just over two years. They have still managed to improve services and provide a range of new capital projects. I predict that this year, despite the tight settlement, they will not impose a 25 per cent. increase in council tax. They will not be talking about a 20 per cent., 15 per cent. 10 per cent. or 5 per cent. increase. I believe that Kyle and Carrick will produce no worse than a zero increase in council tax. Time will tell whether my prediction or that made by the hon. Member for Hamilton is right.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: We have to remind the Government that 25 years ago we were clearing out the slums of Glasgow, which were the worst slums in Europe. People were living at 600 or 700 to the acre in rat-infested houses owned by private landlords. Tuberculosis was rife and people were dying of poverty. Past Tory Governments acknowledged that poverty and allowed it to continue.
We are still in the same position. We have a golden opportunity to look after the people of Scotland and of Glasgow. In Glasgow, there are 22,213 dwellings below a tolerable standard and 7,000 houses are lying empty. In 1982–83, Glasgow received 5,673 applications of homelessness and in 1993–94 the figure was 12,500. No one has laid a brick in Glasgow since 1986.
We hear about all that is happening in Scotland, but it certainly is not happening in Glasgow, where some of the blackest constituencies suffer high infant mortality rates, rat infestation and decaying houses that are unfit for human habitation. The Secretary of State had a golden opportunity to give Glasgow the opportunity to do something about that, possibly by increasing the housing support grant, but what figures have the Scottish Office produced?
Since 1991, £22 million has been cut from the housing support grant, representing a cut of 95 per cent. in 1994–95 and a cut of 99 per cent. in 1996–97. Those are the figures we are given. We understand the policy, as I shall explain later in the debate.
There is an old Scottish saying that the Scottish Office formula should go out the window because the notional figures are a damned disgrace, especially when they apply to some of the most deprived constituencies in Scotland.
The Scottish Office works on a notional figure calculated on rents 10 per cent. higher than they really are. That represents a direct cut for local authorities in


Scotland. Rents are calculated at £37.48 when, on average, they are only £27. It is a damned disgrace, a fraud and a lie to the Scottish people and it should not be tolerated.
The Scottish Office has calculated a notional figure for lost local authority rents because of the right to buy as 3 per cent. when the actual figure is 3.5 per cent. That is another cut being exposed.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was expecting rent increases of around 4 or 5 per cent. Why should that be when people find it difficult to pay their existing rents, particularly as inflation is running at 3 per cent.? His figures and his assumptions are wrong because Glasgow is proposing a 6.2 per cent. rent increase next year. One reason for that is the capping and the cutting.
I thought that housing support grants were to get rid of the bad housing in Glasgow and to keep rents down, but the Government policy is to ring fence housing so that it is funded by the people who are paying rent.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wray: If the hon. Gentleman will let me get started, I shall give way later. A further increase in rents in Glasgow of £1.02 is due to the right to buy, as local authorities have lost that housing stock. That has never been cash calculated as the Scottish Office never took it into consideration.
Then came the crocodile tears from the Government, who said that they were looking after the people who were suffering. They said that they set up a general fund contribution for local authorities that have many problems and are suffering from cuts. Last year, everyone applied to the general fund and everyone was refused, so the general contribution fund holds no water.

Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the capital raised from the sale of local authority housing has been passed back to Glasgow district to allow it to reinvest in its housing stock? Will he say what proportion of rents are paid through housing benefit in Glasgow?

Mr. Wray: What a shock I have for this man when I give him the figures for housing benefit and tell him where it is going.
The Scottish Office should release the money to allow Scottish local authorities to build. If they are releasing it, they are not releasing it for housebuilding because they want it back in the private sector. We shall complete the cycle and we shall end up with the slums that we had in the 1950s and 1960s.

Mr. McMaster: The devious trick that has been used in Scotland is that when the Government give a local authority its capital allocation they deduct whatever it has been given in capital receipts. That sleight of hand has stopped many houses being built. Council house tenants are now the most heavily taxed people in the country. They pay the burden of homeless persons units for all local authorities and people are increasingly becoming homeless because many of those who have bought owner-occupied houses cannot keep up the mortgage repayments and council house rent payers are left to pick up that social problem.

Mr. Wray: My hon. Friend is correct. He has experience of a good working-class background and understands what slums are. I came from a family of 10,

who lived in a room and kitchen. Seven of the family were bedwetters, which made it difficult—we invented the sauna.
In most cases, housing is the largest single expenditure for individuals and families on low incomes. Governments earlier this century realised that and adopted policies to ensure decent housing for everyone, regardless of income. The policies were successful. The National Consumers Council found in 1977 that those on low income often received better value for money than others—mostly due to good quality, subsidised council housing. Those in private rented accommodation suffered to some extent.
Now we come to the sad story of when the Government took over in 1979. The election of the Tories in 1979 changed the position completely. Their policies totally altered the role of the public sector rented housing. The changes involved minimising public involvement and, as in other sectors, giving way to market forces.
The main thrust of the Government's proposals was as follows: ownership was to be extended; Government expenditure was to be reduced and targeted more effectively; and local authority responsibility was to be decreased by increasing private ownership and transferring homes to housing associations, such as Scottish Homes, with the support of the majority of tenants. In addition, the private rented sector was to be improved and the number of housing associations was to be increased. The Government were taking housing out of local authority control—even though local authorities could probably have done something about the problems.
As well as those UK-wide plans, specific legislation for Scotland was introduced. Scotland, with its history of low ownership and large numbers of council houses, was seen as having plenty of potential. Legislation introduced included the Scotland Act 1980 and the Housing Planning Act 1986. Those Acts were supposed to benefit the poor. They introduced the right-to-buy scheme that allowed tenants to buy their houses at market value minus a discount based on the length of occupancy. They changed subsidies from buildings to households to help those most in need and shield the poor. The decline in council houses and the increase in private sector dwellings and housing associations was meant to increase the choice of accommodation available.
What happened? The policy of increasing home ownership has been a success in terms of numbers—with an increase of 450,000 new owners, but the prospect of home ownership has been unrealistic for those on low incomes. Even with discounts of up to 70 per cent. on the market value, the price was beyond the means of those on low incomes. Recently, they have also been unable to lake advantage of the rent-to-mortgage scheme as repayments were once again too high.
The Government then committed the cardinal sin—the bright Cabinet brought in deregulation. In 1989, the Tories deregulated private rents. Since then, housing benefit for private tenants has increased from £1 billion to £4 billion in 1993–94. That was mostly due to the massively increased rents—public money went straight into private landlords' pockets. That was a disaster for the Tories who said that deregulation would increase the supply of flats and houses and so decrease rents. Rents were also pushed up when council house building came to an end and restrictions were placed on housing associations' building programmes.
The financial consequences of deregulation have not only caused massive rent increases, but misery for tenants, especially the poor, and huge bills for taxpayers. In 1989, public payments to landlords via housing benefit was £1.4 billion; last year that figure rose to £3.83 billion—a 280 per cent. increase. The Government have even suggested that by 1996–97, that could possibly increase to £5.2 billion.
I shall cut short my speech because I know that a number of hon. Members want to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has, over many years, represented a district similar to mine in council and Parliament. I want to give him the opportunity to speak. I know that he will be as compassionate as other hon. Members who represent Glasgow constituencies.
The Government's housing record is a scandal and a disgrace. The Government must be reminded of their legacy. We will not let them forget it.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate. I shall speak purely and simply about housing, which is important.
A civilised society has a duty and a responsibility to provide adequate housing at affordable rates for all its citizens. It is one of the great indictments of this country that we have been unable to achieve that objective with the vast sums of public money that have been spent. That is not because the public purse or taxpayers' money has not been spent; vast sums of taxpayers' money are spent.
I shall give an example from my constituency. Angus district council is being congratulated because it has kept down its council house rent increases. That is why the council has been unable to build up adequate funds to maintain its stock of property in a fit condition for modern people. Angus, like every other council with houses to rent, has failed to make use of housing benefit as a means of pouring vast sums of money into its housing coffers. It is available as of right to individuals—which is what every hon. Member would want.
I listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). I know something about living in a small house with eight children and sharing a bed with four others. The only marvellous thing about that is that today my family—we are nearly all pensioners now—is still as close as we were when we were children. Perhaps there are lessons there for all of us. The entire family was at my eldest brother's home the week before last, and it was great to see everyone there.
There has been a failure to cash in on the £800 million being spent every year in Scotland on housing benefit. Of course, I know that the money does not all go to council houses, but council landlords have failed to cash in on that golden tap because they have set rents at unrealistic levels. The levels should ensure that there are adequate funds to carry out the necessary maintenance repairs and modernisation in the lifetime of those dwellings. If the landlords had done so during the lifetime of housing benefit—which has been with us for a long time—there is no doubt that we would not now be suffering. I see that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) is shaking his head. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he

does not understand that, unless one takes the money that is available as of right, it will be used elsewhere and will be lost to the council house coffers.

Mr. Welsh: Angus district council has kept its rents down by good management and has used housing benefit for the benefit of tenants. The hon. Gentleman fails to remember that when the Conservative party was in charge of Angus district, it wiped out all reserves and left nothing for the ratepayer. The Conservative council gave poor service and poor value for money.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that there are no problems with maintenance, condensation or damp in Angus district council, he is talking rot. He knows it and I know it. I have to deal with the problems of my constituents who are the tenants of Angus district council.

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I am about to sit down. I did not say to the hon. Gentleman that there were not some things that Angus had done well. I said that it had not cashed in on all the funds that were available. That is an indictment of the council.

Mr. Welsh: is this an intervention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) concluded his speech?

Mr. Walker: I said that I would be brief.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Commendably brief.

Mr. James Wallace: I do not propose to be quite so brief. It is an indictment of any party for it to argue, as the Secretary of State did when he met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, that it is all right to thump up rents because housing benefit will cushion the increases. The people who are entitled to housing benefit are those in poverty and in the greatest need. The Government shelter behind those in greatest need to provide some doubtful justification for their policies.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggested that local authorities should thump up their rents because they could claim the money in housing benefit. One wonders what the Secretary of State for Social Security would do if that happened. It has happened in the private sector and the Secretary of State is taking steps to stop it. The councils would not be allowed to get away with it for long.
Every year one has to go back to basics to work through the various ways in which housing grants are allocated. Housing finance may often appear complex, but the simple fact is that, as investment in housing has been restricted, there has been a rise in homelessness. Nothing in the housing orders before us gives us any confidence that the necessary increase in investment in housing will be provided to meet the problems of dampness and condensation that the hon. Member for Tayside, North mentioned. Nor is there anything to bring any hope or relief to those who have waited too long on waiting lists. I am sure that in our constituency surgeries we all deal


with constituents who have housing problems. One fears that one cannot go back and tell them that anything in the orders is cause for hope.
The debates on housing finance and revenue support grant are an annual ritual. When I first came into the House, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) speak in a similar debate. He said that he had been making the same speech for 15 years. We face this evening a set of orders which, no matter what is said in the debate, are essentially non-amendable. The Secretary of State's word will be law.
It is interesting to ponder the fact that in the regional council elections in May last year, out of 453 regional and islands councillors, only 31 Conservatives succeeded in being elected by the people. Yet we have a Tory Secretary of State who will largely determine the budgets of Scotland's councils. With some 87 per cent. of councils' income in the hands of Ministers and with capping powers, the Secretary of State has taken over the function of council treasurers the length and breadth of the land. To us, that is a travesty of what local democracy should be about. The essence of accountable democracy is that local representatives have a financial responsibility. That has all but been taken away by the steps that the Government have taken.
This year's settlement is particularly draconian.. If one excludes community care provision, it amounts to a 0.5 per cent. reduction in cash terms. One can bandy figures about, but when one puts them in the context of services, it becomes clear just what is happening to, our local authorities and the people who depend on local authority services as a result of the settlement.
The settlement has put strains and constraints on local authorities. It takes no account of the pay increases for public sector employees except those for the police. A 5.1 per cent. increase for teachers over two years is scarcely a generous settlement, not least when we are expected to have a well-qualified and well-motivated teaching profession. To meet the constraints, there will have to be a reduction in the number of teachers, or it will not be possible to employ additional teachers to take account of rising school rolls.
The figures for 1991 to 1993 show that 75,000 primary school pupils in Scotland are in classes of more than 30. That is an increase of 3.6 per cent. There has been a 17.7 per cent. increase in the Borders and a 12.9 per cent. increase in Tayside. In secondary schools, 89,000 pupils are taught in classes of more than 30. That is an increase of 35.9 per cent. over the two years. That must be set to increase even further as a result of the orders that we are debating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber outlined the choices that Highland regional council will face as a result of the revenue support grant settlement. Grampian regional council will require a base budget saving of some £31 million. Let us consider what £31 million amounts to. It is equivalent to the council's total spend on nursery, special and community education in the current financial year. It is the equivalent of the annual salaries of 10 per cent. of the council's work force. If a teacher's annual salary, including on-costs, amounts to £24,500, £31 million is the equivalent of the salary bill for 1,265 teachers—the staff required to run approximately 18 of the council's 38 secondary schools or 145 primary schools.
The total salaries and wages budget of the police was £31 million. That figure is equivalent to twice the spend on Grampian fire brigade in 1994–95. It was the entire planned spend on road maintenance, including winter maintenance. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland would like to tell us which of those services should be cut as a result of the constraints placed on Grampian regional council. Make no mistake, when the cuts take place, we shall make sure that the responsibility is on his lap and not on that of the councillors whom he is making implement his dirty work for him.
In my constituency, there will have to be a 5 per cent. reduction in spending to keep within capping levels. Some key decisions will have to be taken on the basics such as maintaining the ferry services to some islands, on which the islanders very much depend. Perhaps in 1980 and 1981 there was some fat that could be cut, but now we have had year after year of cuts, so there is no fat )left. We are eating into the muscle. Local authorities are right down to the bone.
Where does the Secretary of State think that the savings can come from? He makes great play of the increases in staffing, yet he has never said what proportion of the increase relates to extra responsibilities for functions such as community care and devolved school management. Those are Government policies which local authorities have to implement. They require extra staff to do so.
In giving his figures, the Secretary of State said that he would like to see a reduction in spending on libraries. For centuries, public libraries have been an important part of the community, yet he wants to see a programme to run them down. The Secretary of State wants fare concessions to be limited. He has even suggested in some of his figures that he looks to councils to make savings on burial grounds. I remember when that was suggested on a previous occasion, when Shetland Islands council was trying to meet its budgetary demands. Someone suggested that it should dig shallower graves. We now have a Government who hold out the possibility that councils should dig shallower graves to fund basic services.
I assume that most hon. Members received representations this week from the National Association of Funeral Directors. It drew attention to the pressures on many families as a result of the limitation on social fund payments for funerals. Now the Government advocate increasing burial charges.
I have outlined some of the real choices that local authorities will have to make. That leads to a fundamental point. There is a breakdown in trust between central and local government. In a mature democracy, there are different centres of power. While there will sometimes be friction, at the end of the day they should work together in partnership rather than in conflict.
I admire people of all parties who intend to stand for election to the new authorities on 6 April. They will have a pretty thankless task. In many of the smaller councils with limited budgets, they will have to choose which services to cut. There will be little scope for innovation or positive action in the interests of the communities. There will be no joy in making choices between cuts. It is no basis for establishing a new system of local government. We need to reinvigorate local democracy and recreate a positive partnership between central and local government.
The Secretary of State has sought to blame COSLA for the problems, but the blame lies fairly and squarely with the Government. When services are cut and when the increased council tax demands fall through the letter-boxes, the blame will lie on the Treasury Front Bench. Our candidates will ensure that people know those facts before 6 April.

9 pm

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am surprised that the Secretary of State, who has presided over the worst-ever unemployment in Scotland, should say that too many people are employed in council services. He should ask the question: if the councils start sacking employees, where will they go? The railway workshops, the tobacco industry in Alexander parade in my constituency and the shipyards have all lost labour. If it were not for the local authority, there would not be an apprentice in the building industry in Glasgow. The great private sector, about which Conservative Members are always bragging, get benefits from that. When the young apprentices have finished their training in the direct labour departments, the private sector is the first to snap them up. It wants the bricklayers, the carpenters and the electricians, but it does not want to train them.
Hon. Members have already referred to Scottish Homes. That organisation snaps up the young officials who get diplomas and training from housing departments in places such as Glasgow and Renfrew. When' there is so much unemployment in Scotland, the Secretary of State should not say that local authorities should sack staff. He and his Ministers should be creating more jobs in the private sector to take the pressure off local authorities.
One area that could do with more employees is the concierge service, which should operate in every multi-storey dwelling in Scotland. In the old days, people came out of tightly knit communities in the old tenements and went into the new flats. There was no problem then. Now, unfortunately, in some of the multi-storey flats there is a certain element who will not give the other people peace and quiet and there is vandalism.
Great waste is associated with the hospital in Clydebank. I have spoken in debates in the House and highlighted the way in which Government money has been spent on so-called job creation schemes; that money has gone down the drain. Why not spend money on a concierge system that would give 24-hour coverage with video cameras in the multi-storey flats?
Some of the homes in those multi-storey dwellings are like palaces, but the residents are ashamed of the entrances—they are ashamed to bring their friends and relatives into those blocks. It is no easy answer to say, "Pull them down." In certain areas of my constituency that would be the equivalent of pulling down a small town. It would be ridiculous. A concierge system would be a great benefit.
As I said, some of the homes on the council estates in my constituency are absolutely beautiful. Recently, I went into one and I can say that no interior designer could have designed the inside of that house as well as my constituent had done. It would have done a Barratt show house proud. There is that sort of home on every council estate in Glasgow.
People need backing; they do not need a Government who cut the support grant. The Minister knows that in some of the housing estates the people are fighting against terrible odds. In the next tenement to that beautiful home was a house where the damp was so bad that the resident had to pull the bed away from the wall so that she and her children could have a decent night's sleep. Scottish Homes will not provide the money to reroof the tenement.
I did not do my training in the building industry, but I know that if a roof is neglected the rest of the building will crumble. The resident had lived in the community all her life, as had her husband. There is a network of relatives and friends around them. She does not want to leave her home, but if the roof is neglected she will be forced to leave and the local authority will have to rehouse her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) was brought up in the Gorbals and I was brought up on the other side of the city in the Anderstoun district. We were brought up in the slums, so we know what it is to get a council house. Many people who went into those council houses were very proud of them. Now, the properties need a lick of paint, reroofing and repairs. This is not the time for the Government to neglect them.
As the Minister may know, the chief medical officer in Glasgow appeared on a BBC television programme on Monday evening saying that the life expectancy of young couples on those council estates, compared with people only half a mile up the road in Bearsden, is being reduced by 10 years. In almost every estate people are living in life-threatening conditions. We must do something about the dampness and the neglect. Resources must be provided to combat anti-social behaviour, which is a serious problem. Some young couples who are unemployed are being aggravated by their neighbours and that will cause stress. Any heart specialist will say that such stress leads to heart attacks and shortens people's lives. It is an indictment on the Government. Many people in Scotland have to be on housing benefit, but any person in receipt of housing benefit would say that he would rather have the dignity of a job and be able to pay his own rent—something which the Government fail to understand.
The question has been posed: where is the money to come from? In my constituency, all the good housing stock has been bought by the sitting tenants. I do not begrudge them that—it is their right under the legislation. I was not against the sale of council houses, but I thought that it should have been qualified by an obligation on local authorities to build another council house for every council house sold. Furthermore, they should have been given the money to do that. In my constituency, many council houses have estate agents' "For Sale" signs up in front of them. The unemployed rail workers and tobacco workers will have no chance of buying them; they will go to the highest bidders. If market forces are to prevail, the only way to resolve this problem is to enable local authorities to provide decent housing for the people who cannot afford it themselves.
I have another suggestion for finding the money. There are some signs, thank God, that the troops will be able to leave Northern Ireland. That being so, the Army will no longer need the resources that it used to need to maintain 24-hour security coverage. The same applies to the British Army of the Rhine. The Government did not begrudge the Army, Navy and Air Force the money in the past. If there


is to be a peace dividend now, it should go to pay for the basic right of every man, woman and child in Scotland to a decent home and a decent roof over their heads.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has made an impassioned plea, based on hard-won experience, on behalf of his constituents. Too many of our fellow citizens face these problems. That is what the debate is all about: how are we to react to the conditions in cities that we see all around us, to ensure that our citizens enjoy decent homes and living standards?
We have heard a concerted assault from the Opposition on the Government's proposals, but from the Government we have heard no reaction—only a statement that this is the best of all possible settlements. We have heard no justification or rationale from the Government. We have heard about no general plans for local government finance. We have certainly heard no attempt to relate the Government's budgetary proposals to real councils and real services in the real world.
No wonder the Government have not made this attempt—their proposals are wholly inadequate for the purpose. This settlement ignores Scotland's wealth and imposes a freeze on and cuts in essential daily local services. How can it be realistic to make Glasgow, Edinburgh and Renfrew, with all their problems, freeze their spending to avoid capping, and not even to permit them to allow for inflation? Councils such as Clydebank also face cuts. This time, the Government are putting the squeeze on all the councils of Scotland, with the exception of two of the smaller ones. For the second year running, the Government have made no allowance for wage increases in cash or for capping purposes, and their policy seems set to continue.
Even prudent councils find themselves facing massive council tax rises or unacceptable cuts in basic services—all due to this settlement. I thoroughly agree with Councillor Rosemary McKenna who has said:
Once again we will NOT be making choices about how we provide the best service to Council Taxpayers. Rather we will be looking at how we can provide a service which meets Government imposed targets.
This is the Government's internally driven budget, certainly not the people's budget.
Grant-aided expenditure may appear to be 1.1 per cent. higher for next year, but when provision for care in the community and for other new burdens is taken into account, the settlement turns into a reduction in the provision for current services of about 0.5 per cent. While oil-rich Scotland needs better services and a job creation programme, all we get from this London Government are cuts and closures. It is not good enough. The Government clearly lack the imagination and the impetus required to solve Scotland's problems.
That is why there is no war on poor housing conditions. There are no major housebuilding or improvement programmes that would use Scottish skills and Scottish materials to get folk off the dole queues and to create assets for generations to come—and to meet today's real housing needs. Instead, we are offered only housing support grant, which cuts net spending by 12 per cent. in cash terms and by 19 per cent. in real terms over the next

three years. Meanwhile, gross spending is to fall by 10 per cent. in cash terms and by 17 per cent. in real terms over the same period.
In real terms, taking into account capital receipts of £175 million, less will be directly invested from public sources in Scottish housing three years from now. So much for the future offered by this Government. The truth—as opposed to the Government's policy—is that 500,000 houses, 30 per cent. of Scotland's housing stock, suffer from damp, condensation or mould. Forty-two thousand households are homeless. Such massive problems affect all too many of our fellow citizens' daily lives, and they are not being tackled to ensure an end to them even in the distant future. The most vulnerable in society bear the brunt of the failure of Government policies.
When will that unacceptable situation change? I suspect that the same will happen next year and the year after that, as this incompetent Government stumble from crisis to crisis. Those cuts are only part of a series imposed on local government over the past decade. While central Government load more responsibilities on local authorities through legislation, they increasingly impose financial cuts—the worst of all possible worlds.
The budget is hopeless and offers no chance of improving housing services this year, next year or the year after. It is time that finance was related to real need and time for Scottish local authorities to enjoy a period of stability, to permit longer-term planning to meet the actual needs of people in their areas.
No one expects the backlog of Scotland's social and economic problems to be solved instantly, but we have the right to a logical, long-term plan that will do something about them, and the Government have failed totally to provide one. We wait in vain, and this load of financial rubbish will only store up more trouble for local authorities and the people who rely on the essential daily services that local authorities provide. Pocket money instead of investment will not do. Massively rich Scotland deserves better, and now Scotland can do something about that.
The Secretary of State slid away from my point about unified business rate levels and its effect on Scottish business. The first common UBR may not provide a level playing field. Scottish rentals have risen 53 per cent., whereas the figure in the rest of the UK was only 1 per cent. To maintain the same yield, revaluation would require a similar level of 42.3p in the pound in England.
Scottish rental evidence suggests a considerable rise in rateable values. I would be happy if that were a sign of increased business, as the Secretary of State implied, but it is a sign of revaluation. The Scottish Office's lowest estimate of revaluation is that the tax yield on 42.3p would produce £80 million more than was required to meet the Government's suggested yield. The figure could be higher, which would not be the promised level playing field. I invite the Minister to respond tonight to the comments of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
It is clear from the settlement that the Secretary of State has no interest in fighting for Scotland. His constant refusal to help overcome Scottish councils' financial problems is based solely on Treasury dogma. His much-vaunted seat in the Cabinet has done nothing to stop Government and Treasury actions in respect of Scotland


and our local government system. The Secretary of State should step aside and allow a Treasury Minister to lead the debate, because the right hon. Gentleman is obviously not master in his own house.

Mr. David Marshall: Are not thousands of houses in Scotland affected by damp and difficult and expensive to heat? There appears to be no disagreement about that among Conservative Members—but instead of doing something positive, the Government have cut housing support grant year in, year out. If Ministers had to spend a Scottish winter in some of those houses, perhaps they would do something—and double quick.
Such properties may be called houses; they certainly cannot be called homes. In my constituency and in the city of Glasgow, far too many sub-standard houses are causing untold misery, discomfort and problems for tenants, especially health problems, for young and old alike. The incidence of asthma is greatly increasing among young children. Bronchitis, chest problems and poor general health are widely prevalent. Dry, comfortable homes are essential to combat such ailments and are also cost-effective in reducing national health service expenditure.
The housing support grant formula is a framework that shows central Government policy decisions to be implemented. The Government are committed to giving no central Government or local taxpayer support to council housing, and will continue to manipulate the formula—that is what they do—to ensure that that continues.
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends and neighbours the Members for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). Some of their excellent remarks are well worth repeating, and I make no apology for doing so. I am grateful also to Mr. David Comley, the director of Glasgow district council's housing department, for providing facts relevant to the debate. Glasgow manages approximately 120,000 houses. Rents in Glasgow are due to go up by 6.2 per cent. from 1 March—double the new, increased rate of inflation—an average amount of £1.94 per week, which is not a small amount, as the Secretary of State said, especially to the many thousands of people eking out a miserable existence on very low incomes. It is a hell of a lot of money to those people. It ill-behoves the Secretary of State to dismiss such a large increase for so many poor people in the way in which that he did.
The council's commitment to investing in its housing stock means spending £104 million on improving it in the current year, and that has added 51p per week to the rent. The loss of stock, which has been mainly due to the right-to-buy sales, demolitions and transfers to new landlords has resulted in £1.02 per week being added to the rents paid by a reduced number of tenants. The cessation of direct Government support to the council housing service, which, in the early 1980s, paid for around one third of the service, has added a further 40p per week. At the same time, the council, by a very painful decision-making process, has been trying to reduce

tenant-borne expenditure and has reduced employee costs by more than £1 million, yet still managed to increase spending on repairs in real terms.
In addition, other services are being improved. The multi-storey flat concierge service will be expanded to benefit a further 3,000 homes next year. As a Member who has 13 blocks of multi-storey flats in his constituency, I warmly welcome that, because where the system already exists it is popular and cost-effective. Tenants feel safer, especially the frail and the elderly, and vandalism is reduced. It is hoped that the housing alarms service can be made available to a further 3,300 tenants next year. Again, that is a popular and essential service, providing additional security.
Unfortunately, much remains to be done, for example, the 1,000 sub-standard Winget houses in Carntyne, in Glasgow's east end. I must express my gratitude to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, who accepted my invitation to visit those houses 18 months ago, and especially for his subsequent decision to make an additional £250,000 available for a pilot scheme to see what could be done. Perhaps he will consider extending his contribution and thus allow the pilot scheme to cover more houses than it presently does.
I must tell the Minister, however, that only last week a tenant of one of the houses that he visited—an elderly widow—came to see me at my weekly surgery, and she was in some distress. She is no further forward than she was five years ago. Her roof and windows still let in rain water and her front door has gaps all around it. She cannot heat her house adequately. It is continually freezing, and one can see that old lady's health deteriorating as each month goes by. It is sad to say, but there are far too many similar cases throughout Scotland.
Why will not the Government accept that there is genuinely a serious problem in far too many houses and do something other than make the position worse by making further cuts? People are dying before they should because of the inhospitable housing conditions in which they are forced to live. The scale of Glasgow's problems is far greater than anywhere else and should be recognised accordingly. Glasgow district council is trying its best; the Government are not.
Let me say a little about the revenue support grant. Do the Government not realise the scale of the crisis facing Strathclyde regional council, which estimates a shortfall of £115 million in grant-aided expenditure, as well as this year's deficit of just over £20 million because the Government would not make any allocation for wage awards to council staff? Just to maintain the current levels of service while remaining within the Government's capping limits, the council would have to cut next year's expenditure by £107 million and raise the council tax by 25 per cent.—all because the Government have shifted the burden from the national Exchequer to local council tax payers. That is just because the Government want to build up an election treasure chest, allowing them to announce a giveaway Budget next year in a blatant attempt to bribe the electorate to re-elect them. It will be a failed effort, because you cannot fool all the people all the time.
A cut of £107 million means an across-the-board reduction of more than 5 per cent., and that could mean the loss of 5,500 jobs. There could be fewer police, firefighters and home helps. Some residential homes, police offices, fire stations and outdoor centres for


youngsters could be threatened with closure. Grants to voluntary and cultural organisations are at risk; fees and charges for services will almost certainly increase substantially. All in all, the situation is very depressing and worrying.
Like many other hon. Members, I am receiving pleas from constituents regarding the possible closure of Ad-Tec, a Strathclyde regional council project, as a result of the cuts. Ad-Tec provides courses for people with learning difficulties and physical disabilities. The training that it gives enables such people to find employment. A constituent wrote to me:
I am 24 years old and I go to Ad-Tec four days per week. I have a Learning Disability and was shocked to find out that Ad-Tec may have to close due to the budget cuts …Ad-Tec offers us training in clerical skills but more importantly assists us in our search for work. At Ad-Tec we do things like typing, computing, filing, word-processing, communication, literacy, and advocacy. I would like to have a Job when I am finished at Ad-Tec.
Vulnerable people like that constituent are most at risk and will suffer most as a result of the cuts. Are there no limits to the Government's lack of compassion or humanity?
The orders only make a bad situation worse. The only welcome order would be the order of the boot for this Tory Government—and the one bit of good news is that it will come at the next general election.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker., I am also grateful to my hon. Friends who have spoken briefly; I intend to speak briefly as well to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), if he is lucky enough to catch your eye.
I do not wish to repeat all the points that have been made about rent rises, and the fundamental housing issue—that everyone has the right to a warm, dry and comfortable home. Those points have been made forcefully by my hon. Friends, and I shall simply associate myself with what they have said. I shall concentrate on a couple of specific points.
The Minister would be surprised if I did not mention floods, and it would be churlish of me not to place on record that the Minister recently awarded an additional borrowing consent of £2 million to Renfrew district council. Local Members of Parliament are very grateful for that, because it will allow us to start clearing up the aftermath of the floods. However, we now need to know exactly what will be provided to finance that additional borrowing. Everyone in Renfrew district knows that not a brass farthing of new money was provided; although an additional borrowing consent was provided, the debt must be serviced and the mortgage paid in future years.
When I met the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) during what turned out to be his last few days as a Minister, he gave me a verbal assurance that there was a formula called top-slicing—an unfortunate phrase, given the source of the assurance—which would build money into the local authority's revenue side in future years to service the debt. He followed that up with a letter dealing with future revenue support grant, and he explained the principle of top-slicing, but no such assurance has yet been given on housing. I ask the Minister to give that assurance either tonight or by way of a letter after the debate.
Flood prevention is the issue that exercises the minds of my constituents who were flood victims. As they begin to move back into their homes that were devastated by the floods, they need to have an assurance that those floods, or anything like them, cannot happen again. That is why I have presented the Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill to the House. It tries to make someone responsible for flood prevention in Scotland because, at the moment, no one is. Local authorities have a permissive power to apply for additional moneys for flood prevention, but they need not use it; indeed, the Secretary of State need not fund any application.
There are opportunities in that Bill. They will arise again when the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Bill comes from the other place. I ask the Minister seriously to consider what can be done to assure the people whose homes have been devastated that there will be flood prevention, because they are now buying new furniture and trying to rebuild their lives.

Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his stand on flood prevention. He knows that he has my full support.

Mr. McMaster: I am grateful for that.
Every Opposition Member supports that Bill, so at least 62 of Scotland's 72 Members of Parliament support it. I have laid a motion before the House to refer the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee for its Second Reading. On Friday this week, if the Government do not object, that Bill can proceed to the Scottish Grand Committee, where I will happily accept Government amendments if they feel that there are any problems.
I have not given the Minister warning of my next point, so it would be unreasonable to expect detailed replies tonight, but I urge him to consider it. I am in a position to accuse Scottish Homes and its board of, at best, gross incompetence and, at worst, criminal negligence over the case of Waverley court in Paisley. Six years ago, the local management of Scottish Homes decided that it would empty a 56-flat multi-storey block in my constituency. I would have called it a clearance; it called it a diversification of tenure. It decided to empty that multi-storey block and to sell it to the private sector.
Six years later, that multi-storey block of 56 flats remains empty. The reason is that Scottish Homes, in its incompetence, emptied the block before checking that its proposal for redevelopment could happen. It proposed to empty the block and convert it into cheap homes for first-time buyers. Once it had emptied it, it found that no mortgage lender in the land would give a mortgage for such a block. It has been to see housing associations to ask whether they will consider the matter.
I have met Scottish Homes management locally. No housing association wants anything to with that block of flats. It was built only 20 or 30 years ago, yet it stands idle. The Minister has stood at that Dispatch Box before and criticised local authorities for empty housing stock. The number of empty houses in Renfrew district council is lower than not only the national average for councils, but the national average for the private sector. The district council has turned the general situation around, but Waverley court is still a problem. I have here a letter from


Mr. John McPherson from the Oliphant Oval in Paisley. I know him well; he is a good man who works hard for the community. He writes:
Are Scottish Homes so well off that they can ignore lost revenue in this block of flats for six years? Just how much revenue has been lost over the six year period this building has lay empty?
His questions deserve to be answered.
I deal finally with the non-housing aspects of the orders. To illustrate the orders' impact I cite the case of a couple to whom I spoke only last week. The husband works for Strathclyde's community education department and the wife also works for the council—she heads a unit that promotes understanding between European member states, a project encouraged by the Scottish Office. They now find themselves working for departments at the head of the hit list. David and Edna Paterson are good people. Does the Minister think it right that Members of the Treasury Bench and Conservative Back Benchers boast that people who have such a valuable contribution to make are losing their jobs?
There is one aspect of the orders that Ministers have not considered. When local government jobs start to go in the Greater Renfrewshire area, the constituency of Eastwood will be affected every bit as much as mine. I know from when I was a councillor that when local government workers leave their place of work in Paisley they do not return home to some housing estate or peripheral housing scheme but to Newton Mearns and Giffnock. The impact of job losses in local government will be a matter of political regret for the Conservative party.
I still keep on my desk a handy copy of the book written by Nicholas Ridley, and there is no doubt that the Government still see councils as enablers, not providers. The Government want them to meet once or twice a year, have dinner and award contracts but not get involved in the problems of the people whom they represent.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) for being brief, to allow me to speak about Edinburgh district and Lothian region.
I wish to make three points about housing in Edinburgh. First, for years Edinburgh district has not received any housing support grant for council housing. I make my annual complaint, but the result is that rents will have to go up by £1.85 to cover increased interest rates and inflation.
Secondly, the housing support grant for hostels for the homeless in Edinburgh is being cut by £111,000, or 20 per cent. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—can explain that remarkable cut.
Thirdly, the capital allocation for Edinburgh is being cut by £1 million to £32 million. There is also a strange change. Whereas, before Christmas, the receipts from council houses were said to be going to realise £12.5 million, we are now told that they could realise £13.5 million. I think that the first figure is more accurate, which probably means that in practice we have a £2 million cut in capital allocation for Edinburgh district.
In Lothian region, the problem is that the cap has been set very tight. This year, Lothian region is allowed to spend £596 million and, next year, it will be allowed to spend £600 million. By no stretch of the imagination can £4 million be said to cover inflation, for which £9 million must be allowed; pay increases, for which £17 million must be allowed; and other unavoidable expenditure, which I do not have time to list in detail.
An additional problem to which I draw the Minister's attention is that school rolls in Lothian will be increasing in August by, I am told, 1,400 pupils in primary schools and 1,100 pupils in secondary schools. An extra 130 teachers should therefore be employed, which would mean that from August an extra £3 million has to be found. I should like to hear the Minister's suggestions on how Lothian region's problem can be solved. I expect that we shall hear something about efficiency savings, but what does the Minister mean by that? Does he mean that we must have fewer teachers, larger classes and additional charges for school meals or for meals on wheels for elderly people, or a combination of all those? The Government should deal with that problem.
The amount of aggregate external finance has gone down even in cash terms, once community care transfers are taken into account. From April, it will represent 86.4 per cent. of Government-supported expenditure, whereas this year it represents 87.4 per cent. The Government must do something about the crisis facing Lothian region. They are unlikely to do anything because they do not have the money, having had to pay the costs of economic failure. Moreover, they are storing up money for tax cuts next year.
As I said in the Grand Committee, why not does the Minister put the needs of the children and the elderly of Lothian region before the Government's mad dash for next year's tax bribes?

Mr. John McAllion: We have had a good debate, but it would be fair to say that it has been predictable, with Labour Members universally condemning the housing and local government finance settlements that the Secretary of State introduced. Conservative Members who bothered to speak on the Government's behalf weakly tried to defend what cannot be defended in a democratic Chamber.
I suppose that the fact that Opposition Members represent 61 of Scotland's 72 seats and 75 per cent. of all those who voted in the last general election in Scotland shows that we reflect the overwhelming view of the Scottish people on the settlement. If we lived in a real democracy, all the orders before the House tonight would be defeated because those affected by them voted for hon. Members who want to see them defeated. Unfortunately, however, we do not live in a real democracy in Scotland, so we shall have the fiction of a Government majority voting on the orders when every man, woman and child in Scotland opposes them.
Some of the best contributions to the debate have come from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), all of whose vast experience on housing matters was shown in their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,


Provan (Mr. Wray) reminded us what housing was like in Scotland before council housing was widely available. Rat-infested slums were thrown up by private sector landlords. I lived in one such slum in Springburn and, like all my hon. Friends, can remember the poor housing conditions in the private sector in Scotland which directly affected the health of working-class people. Infant mortality rates were much higher, tuberculosis affected people's chances of survival and working-class people in general lived for a much shorter time than those who lived in better circumstances and better housing.
The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Provan was timely, given that only last week the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report showing that, once again, huge inequalities are beginning to develop in our country and working-class people are again at risk as their health begins to be affected by the poor housing conditions that have resulted from Government policies.
It is because we do not want to return to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that we care about the housing settlement. It is because we do not want to return to those bad times that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) rightly described this as the most savage housing settlement in years.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: May I pose the same question as I posed to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), which he deliberately did not answer? If the settlement is inadequate, by how much is it inadequate? If the hon. Gentleman were a Minister now, on what settlement would he ask the House to vote?

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman would stop intervening and listen, he would discover the answer to that question as my speech develops.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton also said, rightly, that the price that has been paid for the settlement will be paid mainly by council tenants. That remark was met by guffaws from Conservative Members, but the point was confirmed by the opening statement in the Secretary of State's speech, when he said that the Government were assuming, in the housing settlement, a notional rent of more than £37 a week. The Secretary of State knows that actual rent levels in Scotland are much lower than that. The Government are assuming income for local authorities which they will not receive. He is denying them the housing support grant that they deserve if we take into consideration the actual rent levels charged in Scotland rather than the notional ones which the right hon. Gentleman assumes in his housing settlement.
If we take the Secretary of State's own area, Nithsdale district council in his constituency, the actual rent is £25.72 a week. If his council were to meet the notional rent level that he assumes, it would have to put rents up by £12 a week, or 50 per cent. Perhaps the local Member has recommended that the council should do that, because he assumes that it has done it anyway. In fact, to take an even better example, Eastwood—the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is normally present at such debates, is not here—would have to increase rents by £15 a week. What do Conservative Members want? Do they want their local councils to charge current rent levels or do they want them to charge those rents that they assume will be charged, according to the housing settlement? They cannot have it both ways. If they are going to preach in the House that councils should charge rents of £37 a week, they had better go back to their constituencies and

preach the same. I suspect that none of them would do that, because they would he frightened of what would happen to them in terms of votes in their constituencies if they made such an absurd suggestion.
The COSLA brief, which was made available to all hon. Members, pointed out that, in the past 14 years, the Government, by reducing housing support grant and revenue fund contributions, have withdrawn about £2 billion of support for council housing in Scotland. We all know the consequences of the withdrawal of that massive subsidy, because we have seen rents rocket by almost 500 per cent., tenants in their tens of thousands forced on to housing benefit and the housing benefit bill rocket.
It really surprises me that Conservative Members force council tenants on to housing benefit. They have impoverished those tenants by forcing them into dependence on housing benefit and then expect those tenants to be thankful for that. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seemed to think that it was a blessing to receive housing benefit. He should go back to his constituents and ask them whether they like getting housing benefit. They do not; they would like to be able to afford the rents charged by local authorities.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should visit Limlathem, which was the first place to introduce the equivalent of housing benefit. My parents were delighted. I would also be delighted today to see people being properly recompensed through rents and living in houses free from damp and subject to adequate supervision.

Mr. McAllion: If the Government continue with the housing policies which they have pursued in the past 14 years, the hon. Gentleman may be in receipt of housing benefit before long.
As the housing benefit bill has rocketed in Scotland, one of the strangest things to note inside the Tory Cabinet is how the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is almost pulling his hair out as he wonders why that bill has rocketed. He seems to be puzzled by that. He does not understand it. The answer is that the housing benefit bill is high because the Government's housing policy makes it high. That policy has forced councils to set rent at levels that council tenants cannot afford. Therefore, the Government have only themselves to blame for the spiralling housing benefit bill. If they truly want to reduce that bill, the best thing they could do would be to resign en masse and let someone who knew how to run housing policy take it over.
I compare the withdrawal of subsidy from council housing under the Government with their parallel injection of subsidy into non-council housing, particularly through Scottish Homes. We cannot discuss the policies of Scottish Homes in the past 14 years because, thankfully, it has existed only since 1989–90. What might have happened if it had existed since 1979? God help us.
Since 1989–90, Scottish Homes, through its various programmes to enable development and investment, has channelled £1,529 million of subsidy into housing associations, co-operatives, grants for rent and ownership for private developers and other low-cost home ownership schemes. On the one hand, the Government have withdrawn general housing subsidies for council tenants while, on the other, they have increased general housing subsidies for non-council tenants and other home owners. Why is that?
Last year, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), was challenged on why he was cutting housing support grant and general fund contributions to council tenants. He said it was because
This sort of subsidy is indiscriminate because it benefits all tenants regardless of their circumstances".—[Official Report, 14 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 745.]
That is why he is withdrawing general subsidies to council tenants.
Let us apply the same logic to the Government subsidies that are paid through Scottish Homes. Are they indiscriminate, and do they benefit all, regardless of their circumstances? Let us take housing association grant, which is the main subsidy paid to housing associations. Of course the answer is yes, it is indiscriminate; yes, it does benefit all housing association tenants, regardless of their circumstances. Let us take grants for rent and ownership, which are paid to private developers to bring down the cost of new housing to first-time buyers. Yes, they are indiscriminate; yes, they benefit all, regardless of their circumstances.
Why are indiscriminate subsidies outlawed for council tenants when indiscriminate subsidies are increased for non-council tenants and householders? We need to know the answer. Why is it okay to subsidise non-council tenants but not okay to subsidise council tenants? If the Minister does not have an answer to that question in his speech, he had better think of one before 9.55 pm, because many people in Scotland will be waiting to hear why the Conservative Government discriminate against council tenants in Scotland, and we need to know the answer.
The answer cannot be that there are so few council tenants in Scotland that they do not count, because, according to the Government's figures, there are 12 times as many council tenants in Scotland as there are housing association tenants. If all the council housing, the new town housing, the Scottish Homes housing and the housing association housing are taken together, council house tenants represent 83 per cent. of the total. That is overwhelmingly the dominant type of renting in Scotland.
There are more council tenants in Scotland than any other type of tenant, so the question must be, why do so many people receive so little from the Government when so few people receive so much? We all need to know the answer to that question.
The housing support grant that is paid by the Government goes to the housing revenue account, which, in turn, helps to pay the outstanding capital debt owed by the councils in Scotland. I want to ask the Minister a specific question about a capital grant that was paid to Scottish Homes in 1992–93. It received £250,139,000 to repay a national loan fund debt on its housing.
According to the 48th report of the Committee of Public Accounts, which, the Minister will remember, conducted an inquiry into the sale of houses by Scottish Homes to Waverley Housing, the Department told the Committee that that payment of £250 million was in recognition of the houses that had been transferred out of Scottish Homes' ownership. The Department said that there was a danger that Scottish Homes might find itself responsible for servicing outstanding capital debt on

houses that it no longer owned. Therefore, £250 million was paid to Scottish Homes so that it could redeem the outstanding capital debt on the houses that it had lost.
That is all very well. Scottish Homes had lost 30,000 houses at that stage to other forms of ownership, but councils in Scotland have lost about 260,000 houses to other forms of ownership. Where is the equivalent capital grant, which would be in excess of £2 billion, to local authorities in Scotland to help them to redeem outstanding capital debts? The Minister, who will have to answer that question, should think about it. The Government have given £250 million to Scottish Homes at a time when they deny more than £2 billion to local authority government in Scotland.
It is a matter of the way in which we distribute the purse between different forms of tenure. We would distribute it far more fairly, and that is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. We understand very well that there will always be demands on public spending, not only for housing but for health, education, social work and transport. There is never enough money to satisfy everyone, but being in government means having to learn to say no—we know that. As resources are limited, there is an absolute requirement on the Government to allocate those resources fairly, reasonably and in accordance with criteria that ensure that those in greatest need have the greatest priority in respect of the resources available.
According to the Scottish housing conditions survey in 1991, public sector housing, which was mainly council housing in Scotland, needed £691 million spent on it to bring it up to what the Government describe as a reasonable standard. Housing associations required only £30 million—less than 5 per cent. of that total. According to the same housing conditions survey, dampness in council housing is twice as prevalent as dampness in housing association stock, yet last year the Government gave £280 million to housing associations, and gave only £35.9 million to council houses in Scotland.
Why, when the crying need, whatever scheme of priorities one adopts, is to invest in council housing, do the Government concentrate resources in areas other than council housing? The crunch question is not whether we will receive additional resources, but what we can do with the resources that the Government have available to them at the moment. The Government are deliberately discriminating against council housing in Scotland. Deliberate Government policy and discrimination are making it almost impossible for the vast majority of people in the rented sector to live in decent conditions. The Minister must respond to that point.
I do not have much time left to talk about the finance settlement. The Secretary of State for Scotland repeatedly asserts that Scottish local government is profligate in its expenditure and in the number of people that it employs. I have already told the Secretary of State that COSLA will fund with the Government a joint inquiry into those matters. However, the Secretary of State refuses to commission that inquiry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is quite right: the joint staffing watch figures which were issued in December last year and which cover the position until September point out that, between 1990 and 1994, the number of local authority employees was cut by 0.8 per cent. There is the Scottish Office staffing responsibility—I refer not just to the Scottish Office core group, but to


Scottish Office agencies such as Historic Scotland, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, the Scottish Office Pensions Agency, the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Courts Administration, the General Register Office, the Scottish Record Office and Registers of Scotland. Far from reducing the number of people in his employ, the Secretary of State has employed more staff. To be fair to him, we have not included the people who work for Scottish Homes or for the Scottish enterprise network. If they were included, the situation would be even worse.
While the Secretary of State for Scotland spreads untruths about the way in which Scottish local government is profligate in the number of people that it employs, the reality is that he employs far more people and that that number is increasing at a faster rate. The truth will out eventually, despite what the Government say, because they are the facts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): No less than £800 million is spent on housing benefit in Scotland. It is the Government's policy to move away from generalised subsidies to target subsidies at those who need them. We anticipate that the sum will increase and that next year it may be above £900 million. They are very substantial sums and it is very easy for Labour Members to pour scorn upon the expenditure of such large amounts of money on those who need it. However, there would be massive complaints if a Labour Government ever tried to take that money away.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) raised certain constituency matters. I am glad that we were able to help with the Winget housing in his constituency. We have made certain that councils include condensation and dampness as one of the four key national priorities in their housing plans each year.
Glasgow will receive £92 million to enable the council to invest substantially in improving the housing stock. Glasgow could make greater headway were it not for the fact that it lost rents to the value of £8 million through its failure to let empty houses. Reducing the number of empty houses in Glasgow will make a substantial difference, and it lies within the power of the council to do that.
The hon. Gentleman should take up with Glasgow district council the matter of substantial surpluses. In two out of the past three years it has generated surpluses of more than £25 million. He could put in a strong bid for his own constituency arising out of that.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) asked about housing support grant for Edinburgh. Housing support grant is given to help with the deficits of hostels in Edinburgh and it is expected to amount to almost £441,000 next year.
This has been a wide-ranging debate—

Mr. Chisholm: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I must move on and answer some of the other questions. We must ensure that local authority services are sufficiently provided for every man, woman and child in Scotland. I accept that the settlement is a tight one because of the need to keep inflation down. There has also been substantial growth in

expenditure and manpower in Scottish local government. For example, between 1987 and 1994 the number of full-time equivalent staff in Scotland's local authorities increased by almost 6 per cent. In the same period, staffing levels in English authorities decreased by more than 6 per cent. In the year to June 1994 Scottish local authority manpower increased by almost 1 per cent. whereas in England there was a fall of almost 2 per cent. If Opposition Members say, "How will we live with this settlement?" I need only point to the example of the constituency district council of the hon. Member for Hamilton.
On 10 February an article in The Scotsman stated:
Hamilton District Council has agreed to cut council tax bills by 10 per cent., and council leaders have pledged not to reduce services to pay for the cuts. Instead they plan to expand services.
It continued:
The overall package is a vindication of the restructuring which we initiated in 1992".

Mr. George Robertson: The Minister is one of a long line of distinguished failed Conservative candidates in Hamilton, although his forefathers used to own the whole constituency. He has given an example of a highly successful Labour council which, even in the face of adversity being thrust on it by the Government, has managed sufficiently to deal with its own resources. Others have not been so lucky, but clearly it is a successful council that has succeeded in the face of the Government rather than because of it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman's local council can do it, so can every other council in Scotland and that proves my point.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said in his vigorous and substantial speech tonight was extremely important. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not being given a fair chance. The noise is coming from the Opposition and his own side. Can we now have some order and give the Minister a chance?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was pointing out that the level of grant-supported expenditure is 33 per cent. higher per person in Scotland than in England and the level of aggregate external finance is 45 per cent. higher in Scotland than it is in England. It is an example of the fact that the settlement is a substantial one.
I now turn to the issue of capping to which Opposition Members object most strongly. I quote the late Willie Ross, the Labour Secretary of State for Scotland. He strongly defended capping and he said:
the Secretary of State ought to have these residual powers, especially as they now protect local authorities generally from excessive claims by individual authorities on the pool of grants."— [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 14 June 1966; c. 10.]
It is all very well for Opposition Members to complain about capping powers. When they were in power and had the responsibility—and I am one of the few Conservative Members who knows what it was like to be in opposition—their Secretary of State was only too glad to have exactly the same powers.

Mr. Wallace: rose—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have already given way.
We shall maintain a unified business rate in Scotland pegged at the same level as in England on a permanent basis, ensuring that Scottish businesses have the same benefits and stability of competing on a level playing field with their English counterparts.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is astonishing that the Opposition should be prepared to contemplate returning control over non-domestic rate poundages to local authorities and thus at a stroke completely to destroy the benefits that Scottish businesses will gain from the achievement of the unified business rate. We spent no less than £440 million in harmonising it, so it would be a tragedy for every small business man in Scotland if that was to be thrown away.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for displaying his characteristic courtesy. Let me remind him of his visit to Gibbs hill in Greenock. What is the likelihood of the east end of Greenock being given partnership status? A promise was made to bring together Scottish Homes. Renfrewshire Enterprise and the local council. The Minister was extremely sympathetic to the idea. What is the likelihood of that area of my constituency being given partnership status?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That issue will be looked at with great care by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman will receive an answer to his request in due course. I am aware of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency.
We have provided substantial sums for the reform of local government in Scotland—£5 million to cover the elections of the shadow councils and £36 million for the shadow authorities, to be paid during 1995–96. If an existing authority faced genuinely additional costs, we would expect it to discuss funding with the relevant shadow councils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned housing benefit, which is of key importance in Scotland. This year, the figure is no less than £824 million and next year the figure is likely to be £926 million. That is not something to be looked at askance; it is a substantial sum. It is supplemented by no less than £80 million of urban aid.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am totally at odds with the view being propounded by the Minister. How can he possibly argue that there is a positive incentive in having increased housing benefits, when people apply for them because they are living in poverty that is induced by the Government? They are living in housing conditions that are being made increasingly intolerable by the Government's expenditure cuts. I cannot believe that a Minister would be so insensitive as to take that view.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The houses would be in much better condition if the rents charged by local authorities had been raised so that more could be spent on management and maintenance. Everyone knows that the average rent in Scotland is £7 or £8 less than the average rent south of the border. Some commentators say that some of the housing stock south of the border is in better condition. If that is so, it is because more has been spent on management and maintenance over the past 30 years.
The hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) came to see me; we shall look carefully at the issue of urban aid, not only in her constituency, but many others.
To the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) I say that the crux of the matter is that, when Labour was in power, it spent £215 on each house in Scotland in 1978–79. We have increased that figure to £672 per house for 1995–96—a substantial increase. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways; they cannot say that the Government should spend far more on housing, when a large percentage of public sector stock has been sold to the sitting tenants. Some 300,000 houses have been sold to sitting tenants—a factor that inevitably has to be taken into account.
I studied the reactions of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We shall ensure that £35 million to £40 million is allocated for community care projects. That allocation will enable the authorities to achieve their aim. Housing capital and resources for rural areas has again been increased, and those areas receive more per capita than the rest of the country.
Substantial resources are being provided for the non-housing revenue account and, as for capital receipts, more than several billion pounds has been allocated to benefit public sector housing. [Interruption.]

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many English Members of Parliament have suddenly appeared who were not present earlier. They are taking a sudden interest in the debate and appear to have come to vote, but they do not to want to listen to the Minister. Would it be possible to hear the Minister? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have already appealed once to both sides of the House to give the Minister a fair chance. So far, that plea has fallen on deaf ears. I hope that the remainder of the Minister's speech will be given a fair hearing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to draw my comments to a close. I shall study the points raised.
I must stress that more than 300,000 tenants have achieved their ambition of becoming owner occupiers, thus releasing almost £3 billion for investment in housing stock. Almost 300,000 new homes have been built in Scotland since 1979. The number of sheltered and amenity houses has more than quadrupled to more than 50,000 and investment per council house, at £672, is higher in real terms than was achieved by the last Labour Government. Significant inroads have been made and will be made in improving Scotland's housing. It is a success story. We will build on that success, as we are absolutely determined 1.6 do.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 247.

Division No. 75]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkins, Robert


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Arbuthnot, James
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baldry, Tony






Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fox, Dr Lam (Woodspring)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rf Hon John
Gallie, Phli


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, Sir A (SWCambs)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright Sir Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hague, William


Budgen, Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currle, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Delvin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Forth, Eric
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)





Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Luff, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maclean, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


Madel, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Spink, Dr Robert


Marland, Paul
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stephen, Michael


Merchant Piers
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Alan


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, Bill(N Tayside)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary


Rathbone, Tim
Ward, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Richards, Rod
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Robathan, Andrew
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sackville, Tom
Yeo,Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beith,RtHonA J


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Blunkett, David


Barnes, Harry
Boateng, Paul






Boyes, Roland
Harvey, Nick


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Heppel, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hinchliffe, David


Burden, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Byers, Stephen
Home Robertson, John


Cabom, Richard
Hood, Jimmy


Callaghan, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, kevin (Doncaster N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Church, Judith
Illsley, Eric


Clapham, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Janner, Greville


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Johnston, Sir Russell


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Darling, Alistair
Knabra, Piara S


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
kirkwood, Archy


Denham, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H
Livingstone, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Enright, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Etherington, Bill
McCrea, The Reverend Wiliam


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, Wiliam


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
Maclennan, Robert


Flynn, Paul
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
MacShane, Dennis


Fraser John
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Madden, Max


Galbraith, Sam
Maddock, Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Alice


George, Bruce
Mandelson, Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gordon, Mildred
Meale, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Michael, Alun


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Milburn, Alan


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnel, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hall, Mike
Morley, Elliot


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie





Mudie, George
Simpson, Alan


Mullin, Chris
Skinner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Hara, Edward
Snape, Peter


Olner.Bill
Soley, Clive


O'Neill, Martin
Spearing, Nigel


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spellar, John


Pearson, Ian
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Pickthall, Colin
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Stevenson, George


Pope, Greg
Stott, Roger


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Purchase, Ken
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Timms, Stephen


Radice, Giles
Tipping, Paddy


Randal, Stuart
Turner, Dennis


Raynsford, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Redmond, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Reid, Dr John
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold



Wallace, James


Rendel, David
Walley, Joan


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Watson, Mike


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Welsh, Andrew


Rogers, Allan
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Salmond, Alex
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Joe Benton and Ms Estelle Morris.


Short, Clare

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.

It being later than three hours after the first motion was made, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [10 February].

Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK BILL

Ordered,
That Glenda Jackson be discharged from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill and Mr. John Heppell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Orders of the Day — WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Roger Evans be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Mrs. Margaret Morrison

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]

Mr. Chris Mullin: I wish to raise the subject of the tragic death of my constituent, Mrs. Margaret Morrison, and of the failure of the criminal justice system adequately to deal with those responsible for her death. The case raises wider issues about the way of dealing with cases in which criminal activity by a motorist has resulted in or contributed to the death of an innocent pedestrian.
Mrs. Morrison—a much-loved, 84-year-old grandmother—was killed in a hit-and-run accident on 13 September 1992. The accident occurred on Premier road, Sunderland, at about 8 pm on a Sunday evening. Mrs. Morrison was leaving the offside of a car parked on the inside lane of Premier road. The car lights were on and the road well-lit, and the weather was fine. She had closed the car door and was standing close against it when she was hit by an overtaking vehicle. Another vehicle some distance in front had already passed her, so there can be no suggestion that she appeared suddenly in front of the vehicle that hit her.
Mrs. Morrison was carried 30 ft on the bonnet of the car, her head hitting the windscreen. The car slowed and she fell on to the road. The vehicle was then driven away at high speed, and was later found abandoned half a mile away. Witnesses saw two men leaving the car. Before it was abandoned, the passenger was seen to throw two one-pint cans of Scorpion high-alcohol lager into a garden. He was seen also carefully to wipe the side of the car that hit Mrs. Morrison with a coat. He wiped also the driver's side of the vehicle and closed the driver's door using the coat.
The following day, one of the men—Joseph Dorward, much the worse for drink—gave himself up to the police. He was 34 years old and has a long record of criminal activity. He admitted to driving since the age of 16 without a licence. In due course, he was charged with failing to report an accident and failing to have a taxed vehicle, insurance or a driving licence. Later, following strong representations from Mrs. Morrison's family, an additional charge of careless driving was added.
Dorward's passenger, Stephen James Greener, gave himself up on 16 September—three days after the accident. He was charged with aiding and abetting failure to report an accident and with perverting the course of justice.
The case went before Sunderland magistrates on 9 March 1993. Incredibly, they elected to hear the case against Dorward—the driver—but to refer that against Greener—the passenger—to the Crown court. The case against Dorward was strong. It could not be proven that he was over the alcohol limit at the time of the accident, since he had failed to stop and could not be breathalysed. In addition to the can of Scorpion lager that he had been seen drinking in the car shortly before the accident, he admitted to having consumed another two pints of beer several hours earlier.
Dorward not only had a string of previous convictions, many of them involving vehicles, but it later emerged that on 9 November 1992—two months after he killed Mrs.

Morrison and while awaiting trial for that offence—he was again arrested and charged with driving without insurance, a licence or MOT certificate, and having a defective tyre. I submit that Dorward should have been tried for those further offences at the same time as he was tried for the offences arising from Mrs. Morrison's death. That would have enabled the magistrates to place in proper context any expression of regret made on Mr. Dorward's behalf and to sentence him accordingly. In fact, however, neither the Crown Prosecution Service nor the magistrates appeared to have been aware that Dorward was continuing to commit similar offences while on bail for the death of Mrs. Morrison. That became clear only when her son spotted a newspaper report giving details of Dorward's later conviction.
Dorward was fined £600 for the offences involving the death of Mrs. Morrison, payable at £3 a week and suspended until after he had finished paying—at the same rate—fines for a string of previous offences. In addition, he was banned from driving for 12 months. Not surprisingly, Mrs. Morrison's family were outraged, and so were many people in Sunderland. They take the view that, in the circumstances, the life of that innocent old lady should have been worth more than £3 a week.
As for Mr. Greener, he, in due course, appeared before His Honour Judge Capstick at Newcastle Crown court. Like Mr. Dorward, he had many previous convictions, including one for failing to stop after an accident. He was sentenced to 240 hours community service. Both the judge and Mr. Greener's counsel remarked that, as the driver of the car had not been sent to prison, it would not be right to imprison his accomplice, although a conviction for perverting the course of justice would normally result in imprisonment. The judge remarked that Mr. Dorward had been "lucky" to receive the sentence that he did. Counsel for Greener, pleading with the judge not to send his client to gaol, remarked on the "rather extraordinary disparity" that would arise between a sentence of custody on Greener and a fine already imposed on the driver.
A member of the public,
he said,
looking at this matter and hearing of the consequences … would say it was a rather bizarre state of affairs … if the passenger loses his liberty whereas the person who …was directly responsible for killing the old lady …receives only a financial penalty. Such a marked disparity offends the common view of what justice is all about.
Indeed it does. In my view, the handling of the whole case offends the common view of what justice is all about, and I wish that I could convey the widespread sense of outrage in Sunderland that the case has provoked. I believe that it has been grievously mishandled by the CPS, and I have sought to obtain from the Director of Public Prosecutions an admission that that is so, but I regret that I have not been successful.
First, I should be grateful to know why, given the circumstances—I have given the Solicitor-General advance notice of the questions that I intend to ask, in the hope of receiving a substantive reply—Mr. Dorward was not charged with a more serious offence, such as manslaughter, with dangerous, reckless or careless driving as a fallback? Why, indeed, could he not have been charged, with Mr. Greener, with perverting the course of justice? That at least would have got him to the Crown court. Had he been charged with a more serious offence, I believe that there was a realistic prospect that a jury


would have convicted. I remind the Solicitor-General that it was only after the intervention of Mrs. Morrison's family that the charge of careless driving was added in the first place.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining an Adjournment debate on this very sad subject.
My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am, as we both represent the same city, that, in general, the incidence of car crimes in Sunderland is higher than anywhere else in mainland Britain—even Belfast. Does he not think that the very good efforts being made by the police to try to improve the position are grievously undermined by the case that he is describing tonight?

Mr. Mullin: I agree. There is no criticism of the police involved. They did everything that one would expect of them. The criticism and responsibility for this fiasco lies entirely with the northern branch of the CPS.
Secondly, why did the Crown allow the driver to be dealt with by magistrates while the passenger, who after all was only an accomplice, was sent for trial at Crown court? I am sure that there is an explanation that makes perfect sense to lawyers, but it will make none at all to those of us who are not lawyers.
Thirdly, I invite the Solicitor-General to agree that a fine of £600, payable at £3 a week, suspended until fines for previous offences have been paid, is an inappropriate sentence for an offence of this kind, particularly as the defendant, by his own admission, had been driving without a licence since the age of 16. Let me also put it to the Solicitor-General that a 12-month driving ban only adds insult to injury.
Fourthly, I would like to know why no member of the Crown Prosecution Service noticed that, within two months of killing Mrs. Morrison and long before he came to trial, Mr. Dorward was again arrested without insurance or tax. As I said earlier, if someone had noticed perhaps that offence could have been dealt with at the same time, and Mr. Dorward's evident lack of remorse could have been reflected in his sentence.
Fifthly, I would like to know whether Mr. Dorward has yet commenced paying the fine imposed on him for killing Mrs. Morrison. We should remember that more than two years have now passed. Sixthly, I seek an acknowledgment that the CPS handled the case badly, an apology to Mrs. Morrison's family and an undertaking that some lessons will be learnt for the future. I have conducted a lengthy correspondence with the CPS, which has so far exhibited a steely determination to concede nothing and to learn nothing from the mishandling of the case.
It has long seemed to me that cases involving death during the misuse of motor vehicles are not taken seriously enough by either the CPS or the courts. In a recent case—not in Sunderland—a widow who was unable to persuade the CPS to prosecute the person responsible for her husband's death successfully initiated a private prosecution. It seems to me axiomatic that if a person drives a car without a licence and kills or seriously injures someone, a custodial sentence should follow; the same applies to a person who drinks and drives, whether or not it can be proved that drink was responsible for the

accident. I believe that the CPS should be much more ready to apply a manslaughter charge in cases of this sort, and I am sure that juries would be willing to convict.
Finally, I pay tribute to Mrs. Morrison's sons, David and John, who have been persistent but dignified in their pursuit of justice for their mother—and not only for their mother. They believe that, given Mr. Dorward's long record of criminal activity—much of it involving motor vehicles—there is every possibility that sooner or later he will kill or injure someone else. If that happened, those who failed to deal with him seriously on this occasion would bear some responsibility.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on raising an important topic. Let me say at once that I share his feelings of sorrow and sympathy over the tragic circumstances of Mrs. Morrison's death, and share the grief of her family. Such cases, however, must be dealt with not on the basis of sorrow or grief, but according to the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman has a very distinguished record in remorselessly ensuring, and striving to ensure, that the law of the land is upheld. I hope to demonstrate to him that in this case the Crown Prosecution Service does not deserve brickbats, but acted properly, professionally, independently and in accordance with the law of the land.
The selection of the charges that are appropriate when a driver kills another person on the road is too often surrounded by myth, mystery, misunderstanding and ignorance, particularly when the criminal culpability of the driver falls to be considered. Let me demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman how the CPS approaches such cases as a matter of principle, leaving this particular case on one side for a moment.
The case starts in the police station, with the custody officers selecting the appropriate charge. In other circumstances, they may adopt a procedure that does not involve charge. A big difference may exist in the police's perception of a case, in the hurly-burly of the custody suite, and the lawyer's perception of it several weeks later, when all the evidence has been added together. If the hon. Gentleman has been to his local police station—if he has not, I invite him to do so—he will have seen the circumstances in which custody officers have to act.
No criticism can be made of either the police or the CPS if the initial preferred charges are varied, whether they be made more or less serious. They must always march in step with the evidence. The first principle that is applied—and the police try to apply it as well—is that the charge must reflect the seriousness of the offending; secondly, it must give the courts adequate sentencing power; and thirdly, it must enable the case to be presented in a clear and concise way without any diversions or red herrings. There must be a realistic prospect of conviction. Provided that test is satisfied, a prosecution must be in the public interest. In the interest of justice, it is vital that questions are approached in that order. We cannot approach cases in an emotional spasm, or on the basis that the defendant is a scallywag, and the book should be thrown at him.

Mr. Mullin: There is no need to waste a great deal of time on this aspect. I understand and accept that one must proceed on the basis of the evidence. I have read the


evidence and all of the statements. I have the file and the conclusions that I draw, rightly or wrongly, are based on that.

The Solicitor-General: I follow the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I shall come to the evidence in a moment, but I want to set it in the proper background.
Although the hon. Gentleman may be aware of how we approach these things, many people are not. For example, it would be wrong to say that, just because someone has been killed by a driver on the road, the appropriate charge is causing death by dangerous driving. To take an extreme case, a person may have stepped out into the road without warning. It may be pitch black. The person may be dressed in very dark clothes and, therefore, may be difficult to see.

Mr. Mullin: None of that applies in this case.

The Solicitor-General: I accept that, but I have a much wider point to make than the narrow one raised by the hon. Gentleman. Let me try to give him some satisfaction in applying those principles to driving cases in general, and to this case in particular. When a driver, as a result of his driving, causes someone's death on the road, three possible charges can be preferred, as the hon. Gentleman has said. The first is manslaughter—he would like that to be preferred more often; the second is causing death by dangerous driving; and the third is driving without due care and attention.
In deciding which is the appropriate charge, the prosecution must concentrate on the evidence. It must lay aside feelings of animus towards the defendant and his character. It must concentrate just on the evidence. II, out of sympathy for a victim, emotions run away with the lawyer and he prefers a charge that is not backed tip by the evidence, it will result only in an acquittal of the person who should be convicted of a lesser charge.
Let us consider the three options. The first is manslaughter, in which case the prosecution has to prove recklessness. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords disagreed with him in the cases of Seymour and Adomako as to the suitability of preferring manslaughter in this sort of case. They said that manslaughter is appropriate only in the most grave cases where it can be established that the driving was not only far below the required standard but reckless. There are in the casebooks instances of a vehicle being used as a weapon and deliberately driven at someone or of it being driven very close to someone to give him the fright of his life but, owing to a misjudgment, he has been struck and killed. In such cases, manslaughter would be an appropriate charge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that such facts are a million light years away from the case that we are debating.
The second option is the charge of causing death by dangerous driving. As recently as 1991, the House visited this offence and redefined it in terms which, it was intended, should mirror the general public's idea of justice. The Road Traffic Act 1991 was passed to amend the existing law following a report by Professor North, now the vice-chancellor of Oxford university. As a result of that change, causing death by dangerous driving is deemed to have occurred where the driving falls far below—I stress the words "far below"—what would be expected of a competent, careful driver, where it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver that driving

in that way would be dangerous and where it, in fact, caused death. In those circumstances, causing death by dangerous driving is the result and the proper charge.
The cases covered by that charge are infinitely various and each turns on its own facts. The worst cases involve racing or competitive driving, gross disregard of speed limits and prevailing road conditions or overtaking when it was perfectly obvious that it was dangerous to do so and the corner was well signposted, for example.
The third option is driving without due care and attention. In this case, the ingredients are that the driver has departed from the standards of a competent and careful driver but the driving is not so bad as to be viewed as far below that standard. In the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, there were in law only two rational options—causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?

The Solicitor-General: I shall give way in a moment but I want to follow the thread of the argument.
The Crown Prosecution Service was set up in 1986. The fact that it is sometimes gratuitously attacked by critics who do not know the full facts is rather disappointing. It is sometimes attacked for no good reason at all. We must remember that the CPS comprises 2,200 professionally qualified lawyers who are striving to do their professional best. They are supported by 4,400 support staff. Each year, they conduct 1.4 million cases the length and breadth of the country. It is perhaps not surprising that there is sometimes criticism somewhere along the line, given the total number of cases. However, it behoves critics to examine the facts carefully and not use emotive language about incompetence or disgraceful behaviour without great deliberation.

Mr. Mullin: What about perverting the course of justice as a possible way of getting the case into the Crown court? The man was seen speeding and he and his passenger were seen drinking while the car was going along.

The Solicitor-General: The facts of the case are substantially as given by the hon. Gentleman, but as the passenger—the deceased—got out, she was overtaken by the driver of a Vauxhall, which was immediately behind, and the driver moved over, exposing her to the path of the defendant. Until then, Dorward's view of the pedestrian had been obscured by the Vauxhall. He later admitted that he had been talking with his passenger and failed to see the lady until the very last moment. She was struck and tragically died of her injuries. Disgracefully, Dorward drove off and his passenger acted as the hon. Gentleman said.
The question was, how culpable was his driving at the time and what was the quality of it? After considering all, the facts, careless driving was selected as the appropriate charge—in my view, rightly. I have 30 years' experience, in the courts. Until my appointment in April 1992 I spent virtually every day of my life in the courts.
Such an offence is triable only summarily, so once it was selected there was no way in which Mr. Dorward could be tried on indictment. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the appropriate sentence is a matter for the


independent court. It would be wrong of me as a law officer to cast aspersions on the magistrates in his locality, who must remain free from political influence.
The hon. Gentleman asks, "What about perverting the course of justice?" There was no evidence that the driver, Dorward, was involved in perverting the course of justice. That was done by the passenger. It would be stretching the law to breaking point to suggest that, in every case where a driver drives off in such an instance and does nothing more, he has perverted the course of justice, especially when, as this defendant did, he goes to the police station, surrenders and tells the police what he has done. The passenger was charged with perverting the course of justice and that offence is triable only on indictment, so it had to be sent to the Crown court, where it was dealt with by his Honour Judge Capstick, an extremely experienced judge who has sat for many years at the Old Bailey as well as in the north of England.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the other offences that came to light later. The CPS cannot be criticised for not knowing about that, as they took place later and the proceedings were initiated by the police by a special summary procedure that involves serving papers on the defendant. By the time the CPS knew about that case, sentence had been passed. It is not for me to say whether the outcome would have been much more serious for Dorward had the magistrates known about the second

offence. Given the formidable list of Dorward's previous convictions, it is most unlikely that, had the magistrates been made aware that other offences had been committed shortly after the offence in question, it would have made a great difference.
There can be no criticism of the CPS for failing to spot that case among the hundreds of others with which it must deal. The CPS recognises that cases that involve the death of a victim cause anguish. Therefore, there is in place a procedure whereby a CPS lawyer will see relatives and friends of the deceased to explain the procedure. That was done in this case. The hon. Gentleman asked me to stigmatise the CPS's behaviour and agree that the case was grievously mishandled. I fear that I cannot join him in criticising the CPS in that way. I am satisfied that the high standards that it sets itself in witness care were fully complied with in this case.

Mr. Mullin: That was an extremely complacent analysis of the case.
I entirely accept that one must proceed on the basis of the evidence, but statements in the file record how the driver was seen speeding and making his brakes screech. He and the passenger were seen swigging strong alcohol shortly before the accident. As I mentioned, the driver failed to stop. The Solicitor-General said that he gave himself up a day or so later, but—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.